Sure, plenty of it happened. I'm in no position to say which narrations are historical and which mythologized history and which are historicized theology, however, since I haven't exegeted each passage carefully enough.
That's what I thought, I wasn't really worried about you being an atheist in ecumenical clothing. I have been blindsided a couple of times by people who simply don't accept miracles in any way shape or form. That's why I like to ask up front, I really don't like surprises when it comes to epistemology.
Except the plague in 1 Chronicles. That's not part of the grand history of the Torah and Former Prophets, and as far as I know 1 Chronicles is simply a historical narrative (indeed, by most theories it was written after the advent of the historical genre, unlike the Torah). So unless there's something really peculiar about the passage, then I'd be betting it's historical.
I Chronicles seems like a Levitical editorial on the royal line from David till the Babylonian captivity to me. If anything it seems to me the historical aspect diminishes over time and the Prophets would seem to abandoned historical narratives. Genesis comes off as an historical narrative with ten accounts in chronological succession. Most of the Torah strongly emphasizes historical events but the central focus is on the covenant made with Abraham and his descendants.
By way of tentative analysis of the few with which I'm actually familiar...
I'd say the plagues are largely historicized theology but may have some historical core behind the story (we know that the city of Pi-Ramasses was destroyed around 1070 but that's a little late for the Exodus so I wouldn't personally use that as evidence); the escape through the sea of reeds and the destruction of Pharoah's army is almost definitely historical, especially since the Song of the Sea, like most songs, was probably a widespread chorus before the writing of the Torah; Balaam's donkey is more like a mouthpiece of morality used by the author as a surrogate narrator than a figure is a historical tale, on a purely literary level; and the manna is likely historical, but like the parting of the marshlands and the destruction of Egyptian forces (probably dispatched from the fort at Tell el-Borg) has a natural explanation (no less divine in timing, however).
I consider the Bible to have a unique perspective on history. I really don't go around second guessing the writer or writers so the plagues being exaggerated is not an option for me since the Two Witnesses of Revelations will use them in the Tribulation. At any rate, like I was saying about the historical perspective of the OT on history.
Joseph was doing his thing as the second in charge during the period of the Hykos kings (1630- 1520 BC). Following the Exodus of the Hebrew children (as prophesied to Abraham) Egypt has about a thousand years of peace and prosperity. They are in my mind the first world empire (not meant to be a derisive term here). What I see is God's providence not just in the lives of His covenant people, even though that is central. I also see a culture and a foundational civilization saved from disaster and ruin.
With the destruction of the army of Pharaoh during the Exodus God not only freed the Hebrews but the people of Egypt as well. That's a little of my philosophy of history in case your interested, you can take it for what it's worth if not.
Could all of them be true? Absolutely. But I think it does a disservice to the text to take them as a purely historical record which misses the deeper theological themes the authors actually intended to convey.
What comes to mind here is the Passover. Particularly the sacrificial lamb who's blood was sprinkled on the door posts. They were not directed to make a memorial of any of the other plagues or the passing through the R
Tell that to Melethiel (edit: see post 46) and Mallon. Edit: And the fellow from post 49.
I'm not talking to them right now, I'm talking to you.
Once again, you fail to understand what I actually believe.
I didn't say that the figurative interpretation of Genesis continues through 2 Kings 25. I said that Genesis 1-2 Kings 25, sans the law codes and Ruth, constitute a single narration which gets progressively more historical and progressively less symbolic.
Except for the books of the Kings (that includes I and II Samuel for me) I see just the opposite. Up until the United Kingdom the Scriptures are highly detailed historical narratives. With the advent of the prophetic age during the time of Elisha and Elijah I see God's revelation getting increasingly figurative. Joshua and Judges are clearly focused on historical themes as well as the book of Ruth. The books of the Kings is largely a thousand year catalog of successive monarchies. The Psalms is basically a hymn book with brief glimses into history unless you want to count predictive prophecy.
Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah and Ezra are clearly historical narratives. However, the vast majority of the prophets don't emphasize historical events much at all. I think you do the Scriptures a great disservice when you abandon the historical narratives. Redemptive history is recorded there and you can get some real insights into ancient history as well from a perspective secular historians simply can't match.
Come now. I believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in communion. You're not going to question my belief in miracles, are you?
Not unless you shun miracles and scoff at them. Clearly you do not so I have no issues with you on that account. I just want you to know where I'm coming from with this. For me this did not start with Creationism, that was an after thought and still little more then a curiosity. I don't believe in baptismal regeneration but I believe being born again by the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit is a miracles that far surpassed even the sun being stopped in it's course. I consider any moment a sin cursed son of Adam can be in the presence of the Son of God to be supernatural in every sense of the word.
I don't care if you take Genesis 1 literally, if you can understand the difference between God as 'Elôhîym in Genesis one and Yehôvâh in Genesis 2. I'm not being semantical here, the etymology while significant is not central. The differences is between God revealed as the Almighty and God as the Lord of the Covenant that you enter into by faith in the risen Savior. I do hope you understand why this is important to me as a point of doctrine and trust we won't get off on some irrelevant semantical point.
No, but people who can't read clearly are.
My statement was contingent, an if-then statement, and not upon one's belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
We can get to Genesis eventually, it may take a couple of posts but I'm not sure we are ready just yet.
I said you're an idiot if you can't tell the difference between a rejection of faith (and miracles) and an honest disagreement in exegesis which makes some miracles and events non-historical.
I reject your affirmation that the bread is anything other then bread. That's not really a miracle that makes a difference as to whether you believe in the Incarnation or the Resurrection now does it? So what if an Evangelical or fundamentalist takes the early chapters of Genesis literally, they are written as historical narratives. It goes back to reasons for their acceptance or rejection and a much larger issue of epistemology (theory of knowledge). I consider the Bible to be a superior source for knowledge of history past, present and future. My theology is not threatened in any way, shape or form by a figurative interpretation.
To tell you the truth I don't care if you think it's poetic prose written by ecstatic mystics. I do care deeply what your view of redemptive history is and God working in time and space is not open to the skepticism of unbelievers in my Theology. In short, I won't have my view of epistemology or history dictated to me by atheists or agnostics. Christians with a different perspective on the other hand I have no problem with.
I said nothing about your beliefs. I said that if you can't distinguish between A. a priori rejection of the supernatural and B. rejection of the historicity of certain accounts of miracles (and other, perfectly natural events), then you're an idiot.
Oh but I can distinguish between them usually by the response or in some cases the lack of one. God parting the Red Sea or the Jordon river is a perfectly natural event for God. That is really all there is to that.
So, very simple lesson: understand what I (and Mel, and Mallon, and others) believe, and thus avoid being and idiot. After all, you wouldn't want to infect others.
I really wish you would give up the scathing satire, you are not very good at it. I say that to your credit if you don't mind a backhanded compliment. One last time I will remind you that I am talking to you, not to Mel or Mallon. Now if they want to jump in I'll be happy to discuss miracles and their theological significance with them. Right now I'm talking to you.
Oh yes, I'm a secular humanist. Good job.
No self respecting secular humanist would admit to a miracle except in the most isolated of instances. They may accept the resurrection but would never dream of having a serious discussion of miracles as described in the Old Testament.
An a priori rejection of miracles is a rejection of miracles period. You don't do that so you don't really fit the bill. Theistic evolution on the other hand is still highly questionable, I'll take that on a case by case basis.
You're right, I'm not a scientist. I couldn't care about evolution one way or the other.
The central focus of Origins Theology is TOE in case you haven't noticed. You are probably the only TE I have ever met that is interested in systematic theology. You are not only a conservative TE, you my friend are a rare bird indeed.
In fact, I don't care how the world was created. God could have created an army of giant robots that assembled all matter in the universe twenty trillion years ago.
Neither do I, original sin is the only doctrinal issue I have with TOE as natural history.
It doesn't matter to me, because my very simple, consistent point is that Scripture doesn't say either way.
Excuse me for cutting this off...yes it does...Ok, you were saying...
The whole point of Genesis is not that the world was created in six days some six thousand years ago, but that Yahweh is God alone, that Yahweh alone created, that he created purposefully, that he created the universe with order, that the universe is good, that the universe is crowned with humanity, the very image of God, and that humanity's chief aim is to lead all creation in the Sabbath of God's loving arms. If you think that six-day creationism was a more pertinant theme in Israelite belief and practice than monotheism and Sabbath, well... I guess we're done here.
Brother I want you to consider something here and you can trust me when I tell you I have done some homework on this. Just one of a hundred notes I have taken as I poured over Genesis and the related texts on this subject:
This is from Vines Expositor's Dictionary, believe it or not this is only one aspect of the word for Earth in the Old Testament. I only bring it up because words used early in Scripture hold foundational theological importance. I'm not asking you to elaborate on it, I don't expect you to question your view of origins as a result. I am simply asking you to politely and patiently consider it as a point of theology:
EARTH
'erets ( eh'-rets 776 ארץ ), “earth; land.”
This is one of the most common Hebrew nouns, occurring more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament. It expresses a world view contrary to ancient myths, as well as many modern theories seeking to explain the origin of the universe and the forces which sustain it.
'erets may be translated “earth,” the temporal scene of human activity, experience, and history. The material world had a beginning when God “made the earth by His power,” “formed it,” and “spread it out” (Isa. 40:28; 42:5; 45:12, 18; Jer. 27:5; 51:15). Because He did so, it follows that “the earth is the Lord’s” (Ps. 24:1; Deut. 10:1; Exod. 9:29; Neh. 9:6). No part of it is independent of Him, for “the very ends of the earth are His possession,” including “the mountains,” “the seas,” “the dry land,” “the depths of the earth” (Ps. 2:8; 95:4-5; Amos 4:13; Jonah 1:9). God formed the earth to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18). Having “authority over the earth” by virtue of being its Maker, He decreed to “let the earth sprout vegetation: of every kind” (Job 34:13; Gen. 1:11). It was never to stop its productivity, for “while the earth stands, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22). “The earth is full of God’s riches” and mankind can “multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Ps. 104:24; Gen. 1:28; 9:1). Let no one think that the earth is an independent self-contained mechanism, for “the Lord reigns” as He “sits on the vault of the earth” from where “He sends rain on the earth” (Ps. 97:1; Isa. 40:22; 1 Kings 17:14; Ps. 104:4).(Vine's Expository Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Grace and peace,
Mark
)
