Age of the Earth: Commentary on formal debate

[lands21]

For your comments on the Formal debate: Age of the Earth - located here: http://www.christianforums.com/t3057671-age-of-the-earth-formal-debate-no-comments-please.html

 

[chaoschristian]

I believe that this is the first formal debate that has been conducted in OT since I arrived on the scene (not to say that there weren't others that preceded it)

I thank both debators for participating and I look forward to seeing how the debate develops.

 

[lands21]

Looking forward to your feedback!

 

[Willtor]

w00t! Now I'm all excited!

 

[laptoppop]

I'm looking forward to more of the debate as well.

One problem I have with the interpretation of the first part of Genesis as parable or story is the genealogies. The narrative in Genesis is seamless from Adam on down. Where do we draw the line and say "this person is story, but their son is real"? The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew starts with Abraham, so you might be able to try to use that, but in Luke it goes all the way back to Adam. If you try to say Adam was real, but the other elements (the garden, the banishment, the curse, etc.) were story, it turns messy very quickly.
Just my $.02,
-lee-

 

[Willtor]

I don't treat messiness or cleanliness as a criterion of determining the correct interpretation. Besides, as in most cases, I don't think "historical" vs. "non-historical" is always the right question.

 

[lands21]

I don't treat messiness or cleanliness as a criterion of determining the correct interpretation. Besides, as in most cases, I don't think "historical" vs. "non-historical" is always the right question.

What is the right question?

 

[Willtor]

What is the right question?

Different questions for different passages. We always have the obligation to ask what it is that God intends to communicate. If God intends that we should know something of nature by a passage, we should certainly take it that way. But if He doesn't, we are hard-pressed to come up with a good reason to garner such things from it.

 

[lands21]

Different questions for different passages. We always have the obligation to ask what it is that God intends to communicate. If God intends that we should know something of nature by a passage, we should certainly take it that way. But if He doesn't, we are hard-pressed to come up with a good reason to garner such things from it.

And how do we know the difference? Please provide examples.

 

[Willtor]

And how do we know the difference? Please provide examples.

Let's talk about a passage in Genesis, since we are there, anyway. The Scriptures say that the man was created in the image of God. There have been serious discussions as to whether this meant that God was a hominid. Unfortunately, there are still Christians who think that this is so. But, strange though it may sound to them, you and I know that image doesn't actually mean image (as we normally use the word). The question the author had in mind was not what God looks like. And yet, you have no further to go than General Theology to find people saying that this is exactly what it means because this is the "plain understanding."

One improves his own understanding by learning theology and constructing meaningful hermeneutics unified in a consistent theological framework and tied to their respective texts.

 

[lands21]

One improves his own understanding by learning theology and constructing meaningful hermeneutics unified in a consistent theological framework and tied to their respective texts.

Well said.

 

[laptoppop]

Wiltor,
You are expressing it quite well, but I notice you haven't responded to the actual problem. Given a geanealogy that lists real people, and which gives an unbroken chain back to Adam, how are we to distinguish which ones are historical and which ones are fictional? It seems to me that the plain use of a geanealogy would be a chain of one or the other. This is important in this case, because it bears directly on the historicity of Gen 1-6.

BTW, I completely agree that a basic principle of biblical interpretation is to understand what is story (as in some of Jesus' parables) and what is history that also teaches a lesson.

-lee-

 

[Willtor]

Wiltor,
You are expressing it quite well, but I notice you haven't responded to the actual problem. Given a geanealogy that lists real people, and which gives an unbroken chain back to Adam, how are we to distinguish which ones are historical and which ones are fictional? It seems to me that the plain use of a geanealogy would be a chain of one or the other. This is important in this case, because it bears directly on the historicity of Gen 1-6.

BTW, I completely agree that a basic principle of biblical interpretation is to understand what is story (as in some of Jesus' parables) and what is history that also teaches a lesson.

-lee-

No, I have merely shown that it might not be a problem. Even if all of the people are factual people (and they very well might be), it doesn't make the document historical literature. To be sure, the value of the text is not in its recording of particular facts. Even if each one could be independently verified, the value of the text is still in its use as a saga and/or myth, not in its historicity.

You can ask me who is historical and who is not historical all you want, but if that's not the purpose of the passage then it doesn't really matter in the context of OT; and we may not have good reason for thinking one way or the other in one or more cases.

Also, 2 'l's in Willtor.

 

[laptoppop]

No, I have merely shown that it might not be a problem. Even if all of the people are factual people (and they very well might be), it doesn't make the document historical literature. To be sure, the value of the text is not in its recording of particular facts. Even if each one could be independently verified, the value of the text is still in its use as a saga and/or myth, not in its historicity.

You can ask me who is historical and who is not historical all you want, but if that's not the purpose of the passage then it doesn't really matter in the context of OT; and we may not have good reason for thinking one way or the other in one or more cases.

In a large part, I would agree with you. The most important part is what God intends to teach us through the passage. However, historicity can have direct bearing on the reliability and authority of the Scriptures. For example, Solomon's stables. For many years, it was claimed that it would not have been realistic for Solomon to have that many horses. However, later, archaeologists discovered ruins of some of his stables. This contributed to the reputation of the Scriptures as an accurate account of history, not just a set of stories designed to teach us a lesson.

I think the point we would probably have to agree to amiacably disagree is in saying "it doesn't really matter". I would say that the message to be learned is most important, but also that historical accuracy is important in understanding that we have a God who has worked in real lives through real history and truthfully set down a record of it. This makes a difference in my ability to believe that God could really work in MY life here and now.

It is an interesting viewpoint to think of Adam and Eve as historical, but the surroundings/events as fictional, portraying only message. To me, this seems like it greatly compounds the problem of knowing what is real and what is story. Why is this important? Because of various New Testament passages where Jesus, Paul, etc. refer to Old Testament events without any hint that they are not historical.

Also, 2 'l's in Willtor.

Oops! Sorry! :o
-lee-

 

[chaoschristian]

Given a geanealogy that lists real people, and which gives an unbroken chain back to Adam, how are we to distinguish which ones are historical and which ones are fictional?

That's the problem isn't it? If you are going to use the geneologies to establish the historicity of the account, then you must first independently establish the historicity of the geneologies. Otherwise you are engaging in circular reasoning.

However, WiLLtor cut to the heart of the matter: the value of the story isn't conveyed in the historicity of the geneologies, but that the geneogologies were seen as culturally significant. Gluadys does an eloquent job of articulating this in the debate.

 

[Willtor]

In a large part, I would agree with you. The most important part is what God intends to teach us through the passage. However, historicity can have direct bearing on the reliability and authority of the Scriptures. For example, Solomon's stables. For many years, it was claimed that it would not have been realistic for Solomon to have that many horses. However, later, archaeologists discovered ruins of some of his stables. This contributed to the reputation of the Scriptures as an accurate account of history, not just a set of stories designed to teach us a lesson.

I think the point we would probably have to agree to amiacably disagree is in saying "it doesn't really matter". I would say that the message to be learned is most important, but also that historical accuracy is important in understanding that we have a God who has worked in real lives through real history and truthfully set down a record of it. This makes a difference in my ability to believe that God could really work in MY life here and now.

This is true... in our society. It was not always so, and there are places today (though, fewer and fewer) where it is not so. Historicity has not been, and is not, now, universally valued as a criterion for authority. Let's consider Abraham, for example. Few scholars, AFAIK, think the man didn't exist, so he's a non-critical example. Does that make the stories historical, as we treat historical, today? How much is legend? Who knows? But the value is not in the historicity. The stories indicate something of his character. If his character, itself, was made legendary, it was because his historical character was remembered as ultimately faithful. Abraham was the "father of faith." This works into my favorite parable, but I won't get into it, here.

That God works in history is, of course, one of the values we draw from the passage. I'd actually argue that we get this much more primarily from the prophets. Even so, a figurative passage does not denote a fictional "reality." That the story of Lazarus being taken into the bosom of Abraham while the rich man descended into Hell is a parable (maybe I will get into it, here, a little bit) does not diminish the factual reality of Heaven and Hell. Similarly, we cannot suppose that man did not fall, just because Eden is a figure.

It is an interesting viewpoint to think of Adam and Eve as historical, but the surroundings/events as fictional, portraying only message. To me, this seems like it greatly compounds the problem of knowing what is real and what is story. Why is this important? Because of various New Testament passages where Jesus, Paul, etc. refer to Old Testament events without any hint that they are not historical.

I don't remember why I separated this text out. See above for my response.

Oops! Sorry! :o
-lee-

No prob.

 

[vossler]

Let's consider Abraham, for example. Few scholars, AFAIK, think the man didn't exist, so he's a non-critical example. Does that make the stories historical, as we treat historical, today? How much is legend? Who knows? But the value is not in the historicity. The stories indicate something of his character. If his character, itself, was made legendary, it was because his historical character was remembered as ultimately faithful. Abraham was the "father of faith."

So are you saying whether or not Abraham actually took Isaac to Moriah and actually offered him as a sacrifice isn't important, it's the lesson? If something never happened how can that indicate character?

I'm just trying to understand the thinking here.

 

[chaoschristian]

Cincinnatus is a historical character for which we have no direct evidence of existance, only the testimony of later writers, yet the Romans revered this man as a model of Roman character.

The myth of Cincinnatus was of far greater importance to Roman culture than the fact of the man. This myth was so impactful that it later emerged in our own culture during the Colonial era and attached itself to George Washington.

The Founding Fathers are a great example for how the mythology and mythos of the characters stretches beyond the boundaries of the reality of their histories.

The value of the mythology of the Founding Fathers (look they even get their own group name!) far outweighs the value of their factual history in our culture, so much so that certain elements of the culture will defend the mythology in the face of plainly revealed fact.

 

[Willtor]

So are you saying whether or not Abraham actually took Isaac to Moriah and actually offered him as a sacrifice isn't important, it's the lesson? If something never happened how can that indicate character?

I'm just trying to understand the thinking here.

It's the nature of a legend. We don't really have it very much, anymore, in our society. The closest examples I can give are Abraham Lincoln traveling 50 miles to return a book or George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and then telling his dad the truth. Did these things factually happen? Probably not. They might have, but they certainly tell us something about how we perceive these people. We would say that they are indicative of these peoples' characters.

I am certainly not saying that it's the lesson, though that is certainly part of it.

 

[vossler]

It's the nature of a legend. We don't really have it very much, anymore, in our society. The closest examples I can give are Abraham Lincoln traveling 50 miles to return a book or George Washington chopping down a cherry tree and then telling his dad the truth. Did these things factually happen? Probably not. They might have, but they certainly tell us something about how we perceive these people. We would say that they are indicative of these peoples' characters.

I am certainly not saying that it's the lesson, though that is certainly part of it.

Shouldn't comparing Lincoln and/or Washington's legendary event with Abraham's act of faith cheapen it? If people never actually thought that Abraham held the knife over Isaac, how can that make the lesson or his character real?