Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Look Speedwell, I never said that everything is either 100% history or a lie. I just see it this way in Genesis, because the book is written as history whether you like it or not, so if it is not accurate history then I consider it a lie. Also, what's hostile sounding about me taking a firm stance on the truth of Genesis? You have yet to explain your reasoning for why you interpret Genesis 2-3 as fiction when the rest of the book was clearly written as non-fiction.Well, that's a little better. We've gone from 100% accurate literal history versus lie to 100% accurate literal history versus made up story. It's still a false dichotomy, but not so hostile sounding.
God wasn't setting a norm: He was setting a limit. Don't you think given our advancements in technology and medicine that we would be surviving much longer than that, though? It seems as though God may be squishing our pride.In the U.S. 1.73 people in 10,000 live to be 100 years old (2010 Census).
Close to 1 in 100 people live to be 90 years old in the U.S. Those who live longest are usually women.
Most people die in their 70's and 80's.
A lifespan of 120 in the flesh as described in Genesis is close to a record maximum, but it is not a normal life span.
Of course I keep telling you that the Garden story* is written as a legitimate form of historical narrative, not fiction, but you are not paying attention.Look Speedwell, I never said that everything is either 100% history or a lie. I just see it this way in Genesis, because the book is written as history whether you like it or not, so if it is not accurate history then I consider it a lie. Also, what's hostile sounding about me taking a firm stance on the truth of Genesis? You have yet to explain your reasoning for why you interpret Genesis 2-3 as fiction when the rest of the book was clearly written as non-fiction.
That's a good, common sense explanation. The vantage point of much of the OT was the Babylonian captivity. The devastation of yet another enslavement, the loss of the Temple and their nationalist pride, all this lead the Hebrew preist to recast their history into a "thriller" that would prop up the flagging faith of the scattered Israelites. It worked, in fact it's still working!Evidence internal to the texts, for the most part. Most of it is historical narrative in one form or another, but any time historical narrative is attempted (even now) there is tension between the "facts" and the narrative structure. Basically, the degree to which facts are allowed to stand in the way of a good story has varied considerably over time and place and the literary agenda of the author. Of course, you will say that God could not have inspired such a narrative, it must be 100% accurate literal history for you to allow it divine inspiration. But nobody wrote history like that then and nobody expected it and they thought it was "true" anyway.
Most of the discussions we get into about Genesis are really just about the Garden story, which is clearly a form of historical narrative known as an etiology. All cultures produce them, because all peoples desire to know the answers to the same basic questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Why are things always so screwed up when we know they could be better?
You can believe if you like that of all the hundreds of such stories the Garden story is the one and only which is also "100% accurate factual history," but it doesn't matter, really. For centuries people believed that the story was more or less true in the absence of information to the contrary, but that's not why the story was important to them, that's not why God told us the story to begin with.
Evidently versions of it survived as oral tradition before it was finally written down. The elements desired by a professional story teller are all there; puns and other wordplay, the anthropomorphization of non-human characters, etc. It would make a good panto. You would need a story-teller, some musicians, and three or four actors with masks and simple props all on a square of carpet rolled out in the souk. Add some topical references, bawdy asides and other horseplay and at the end the angel chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword, Ta Daa. I would sure throw down a coin to see it.
Alas, CinG wants to dismiss all such legitimate uses of historical narrative as "lies."That's a good, common sense explanation. The vantage point of much of the OT was the Babylonian captivity. The devastation of yet another enslavement, the loss of the Temple and their nationalist pride, all this lead the Hebrew preist to recast their history into a "thriller" that would prop up the flagging faith of the scattered Israelites. It worked, in fact it's still working!
Whatever is not the truth is indeed a lie. Genesis is a historical account from start to finish: all one has to do is read it to understand it as such. You have yet to justify your confusing explanation.Alas, CinG wants to dismiss all such legitimate uses of historical narrative as "lies."
(But never says why.)
And so the Doctrine of Perspicuity rears its ugly head. No--not unless you read biblical Hebrew fluently and are aware of the historical and cultural setting in which the text was written and the literary forms then in use, both in the Bible and in extra-biblical related literature.Whatever is not the truth is indeed a lie. Genesis is a historical account from start to finish: all one has to do is read it to understand it as such. You have yet to justify your confusing explanation.
And so the Doctrine of Ambiguity rears its ugly head. Good luck understanding Genesis my friend.And so the Doctrine of Perspicuity rears its ugly head. No--not unless you read biblical Hebrew fluently and are aware of the historical and cultural setting in which the text was written and the literary forms then in use, both in the Bible and in extra-biblical related literature.
I certainly can't do it alone. A full understanding of scripture requires all of the scholarly resources we can bring to bear--literary scholars, linguists, historians, archaeologists, sociologists--the Word of God deserves no less.And so the Doctrine of Ambiguity rears its ugly head. Good luck understanding Genesis my friend.
I just read Genesis and believe what it says. I'm sure the prophets, apostles, and Jesus would have no problem with this.I certainly can't do it alone. A full understanding of scripture requires all of the scholarly resources we can bring to bear--literary scholars, linguists, historians, archaeologists, sociologists--the Word of God deserves no less.
But what I am hearing from you seems to be that you cling to your simple-minded historiography so you can do it all on your own.
I just read Genesis and believe what it says. I'm sure the prophets, apostles, and Jesus would have no problem with this.
I do all the time. they are a wonderful set of stories. Each time I read one thoughtfully I find something new in it, some different way of seeing it. Scholarship always helps though. Much of it doesn't come out in English translation--the puns in the Garden story, for example, or the selection of numbers for their numerological significance rather than factual accuracy.Scholarly resources on Genesis are all fine and good, but some day you must sit down and read Genesis itself.
Care to explain?No doubt, although they might be surprised at your historical-positivist reading of the texts, which had not been invented in their day.
Do you read Genesis for entertainment, or do you read Genesis for truth and doctrine concerning the beginning of human history?I do all the time. they are a wonderful set of stories. Each time I read one thoughtfully I find something new in it, some different way of seeing it. Scholarship always helps though. Much of it doesn't come out in English translation--the puns in the Garden story, for example, or the selection of numbers for their numerological significance rather than factual accuracy.
The view, only current in the last hundred years or so, that facts are always more important than narrative structure.Care to explain?
Yes.Do you read Genesis for entertainment, or do you read Genesis for truth and doctrine concerning the beginning of human history?
In other words, people could lie about the facts as much as they wanted to, but as long as the narrative structure was good it would be considered truth?The view, only current in the last hundred years or so, that facts are always more important than narrative structure.
Within much wider limits than is considered good practice nowadays, yes. Even as late as the 1st century an educated Greek like St. Luke writing in an historical form with relatively narrow limits would consider it acceptable to reconstruct plausible quotes from documents he had not seen or conversations he had no access to witnesses of, practices which would completely discredit a modern historian.In other words, people could lie about the facts as much as they wanted to, but as long as the narrative structure was good it would be considered truth?
So what does divine inspiration mean to you?Within much wider limits than is considered good practice nowadays, yes. Even as late as the 1st century an educated Greek like St. Luke writing in an historical form with relatively narrow limits would consider it acceptable to reconstruct plausible quotes from documents he had not seen or conversations he had no access to witnesses of, practices which would completely discredit a modern historian.
The authors' spiritual acuity divinely enhanced. Of course, their perceptions of the natural world were not altered, so they wrote from their own perspectives in that respect.So what does divine inspiration mean to you?
Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?The authors' spiritual acuity divinely enhanced. Of course, their perceptions of the natural world were not altered, so they wrote from their own perspectives in that respect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?