That is not at all what I said. I didn't rule out other types of
literature. But are you saying that all genealogies in Scripture are faked
and meant to be understood in the same fashion as mountains clapping their
hands?
>
>I'm not sure the classifications of writings are terribly precise! There
>are so many shades between them.
I agree and you jumped to the conclusion that I don't believe in any type
of literature other than the ones I had mentioned. I doubt I could mention
all the different types of literature in the world, but that doesn't mean I
don't believe in them. I didn't mention novels or short stories, but they
too are real.
>
>The issue is, of course, just what ARE the writings in Genesis 1-11 and,
>having come to some kind of agreement on a classification (if one is even
>possible), then is it the intent of the writer (a human) and the inspirer
>(God) to tell us anything precise and accurate about history? Clearly,
>that goal is nowhere near the original intent of the writing -- or was
>it? Could it have been a secondary goal?
What is the source of your knowledge that telling us accurate historical
statements was not in the original intent? I see no way you could have
such knowledge. I certainly can't read the minds of people long dead and
so I reject your claim to know the original intent for the same reason I
reject the YEC claims to know the original intent of the author. And their
'original' intent is much different than your 'original' intent. Thus as I
see it, 'original intent' is subjective and beyond any proof. I want to
emphasize this:
ORIGINAL INTENT IS LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT TO 'IT MEANS WHAT I BELIEVE IT
MEANS AND NOT WHAT THE OTHER FELLOW ERRONEOUSLY THINKS IT MEANS.'
And tell me this. Why should we interpret
Gen 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
differently from
1 Chron 4:8 And Coz begat Anub, and Zobebah...?
Why is Genesis 5:18 fable and non historical but 1 Chron 4:8 real history?
Are we to believe that
Matth. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ.
is fictional and allegorical, not relating any true history whatsoever?
I think you have a double standard for how you interpret Matt vs. Genesis.
If you believe that Matt 1:16 is fictional or non-historical then I stand
corrected. Is it non historical?
>
>You think "yes," and I am skeptical of such an assertion.
>
>But, you may say, even if the communication of accurate history was not
>even a secondary goal of the writer (human) and the inspirer (God),
>surely such details that are part of the story which are historical
>details (in our concept of history) ought to be correct? And if correct,
>potentially verifiable?
>
>And my answer to that is simply -- "perhaps." But why?
>
>When Jesus spoke of the "good Samaritan," or the "boy who ran away and
>then returned," both these stories were potentially verifiable at the
>time. Perhaps they were real people -- perhaps not. I really see
>absolutely NO difference in either story either way? Do you?
There is a big difference between a speaker giving an illustration and a
book which relates events like the Sinai, the resurrection and other miracles.
Does it make no difference to you if Sinai never happened? I mean if God
never spoke to Moses the story would be the same, but the truth would not
be the same. If Sinai never happened, then it would mean that the entire
basis of Judaism and in turn Christianity would be a hoax. Do you agree?
>
>The preponderance of scholarship places the writing of Genesis 1-11 back
>less than 3000 years ago -- the rest of Genesis some time earlier. Yes, I
>know there are some "conservative scholars" who date it much earlier, but
>my point is not that it is either one or the other but that reputable
>Christians disagree on all this.
When I took a course in the OT in College, I was taught exactly what you
are saying. That a group of people put together the JEDP sources about 1000
BC. I finally in frustration asked my professor what the evidence for this
claim was? I asked:
'Are there any extant copies of ANY of these sources?'
Prof: 'No.
I asked: 'Are they mentioned in any ancient Hebrew literature?'
Prof: 'No.'
I asked: 'What evidence is there, hard physical evidence?'
prof: 'It is in the way the words are used, when the writer uses Elohim it
is from the [I forget] source and when the writer uses jehovah it is from
another.'
What I drew from this was simply that the biblical writer was not allowed
to use synonyms. If they used metonyms, it was evidency of two sources.
Which is of course ridiculous. Only one person wrote the paragraph you are
now reading and the use of synonym and metonym do not prove that I am two
sources.
>
>I quoted a lot from you above because you raise a good point.
>
>Your base assumption is, I think, that a person who accepts the Mormon
>scriptures is not a Christian. I would not agree with this assumption. I
>would also not accept the assumption that a person who accepts ICR's YEC
>thesis is not a Christian. Yes, IMHO the Mormons have a serious error in
>theology insofar as their second book is concerned. But they, as we,
>point to Jesus Christ as the focal person of worship and adoration. In
>every church, I suppose, there are people who have given lip assent to
>the claims of Christ but have never entered into a relationship with Him.
>Perhaps there are more in my church, PCUSA, than yours. Perhaps more
>still in the Mormaons. Maybe not. That's not our job (IMHO).
For the sake of argument let me grant your thesis. But since I also raised
the issue of the Buddhists, who all could probably agree are not
Christians, what about them? You didn't address them. If they make the
claim that their books are equally to be understood allegorically and
theologically, does this mean
that they also have a valid revelation of God? What about Islam? Do they
have a valid revelation of God which is to be understood theologically?
Since all these 'revelations' including the Mormon are inconsistent with
each other, it seems that God has no self consistency. The Bible says we
are creatures incapable of perfecting ourselves except through Jesus. The
Mormons believe that they have the power to become gods. The Bible say
Jesus is the son of God; The koran explicitly states that Jesus is NOT the
son of God.
My point is this. If objective truth cannot be used to evaluate these
statements, and all can be understood 'theologically', then I would contend
we can't understand anything. A=A and A not = A can not be true at the same
time.I can not both be a person incapable of becoming a God and capable of
becoming a God at the same time.
So let me ask you again, is Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Shintoism,
Parseeism and Mormonism, with all their mutually exclusive statements,
equally true and equally to be interpreted theologically?
>You responded:
>
>>>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 think I understand your POV. Ultimately, of course, all any of us ever
>"see" is our own "internal psychological states." I fear you may be
>looking for a certainty that simply does not exist, except within one or
>more specific "God Encounters." I've had such -- not many. How about you?
>Some people, in my experience, never have one, and seem to get along just
>fine. I don't know that I would have done so, but I'll never know of
>course!
Most of my atheist friends would say that if all religions do is illuminate
our internal psychological state, one might as well go to a pschologist on
Sunday or sleep in and see if your dreams will reveal the same info.
Religion is either metaphysically true, meaning that it is an actual state
of affairs (there is a God with all the trappings of angels or whatever) or
it isn't. I want metaphysical truth, not a good feeling.
>
>Thanks for the dialog. I respect you and your writings a lot. They may
>even represent an actual course of events -- if so I have no problem with
>them; if not so, I still have no problem with the issues involved.
>
>But you already knew that...
Oh, I know, and I appreciate our differences and also much appreciate the
drudgery work you did for my on Adam,Apes and Anthro.
>
>BTW, I just got a book from the ASA to review -- THE JESUS MYTH by Arthur
>Drews (from Prometheus Books of course). He wrote it in 1910 (I had
>thought when I requested it that it was new). Do you (or anyone here)
>know anything about it?
I don't.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm