Exodus

[ebia]

Again, The N.T writers didn't think so....Do a study on the Angel of the LORD, you'll be blessed. Peace.

A reference to a shared story does not tell you how literal the writer/speaker thinks that story is. Especially when that reference is made within a culture with a very different attitude to less-literal and non-literal genres.

If you want to believe it's literal that's fine - so long as you don't loose its theological and universal meaning - but don't accuse others who don't share that reading as not believing it or of calling Jesus a liar. And don't keep patronisingly assuming that we don't know the O.T.

 

[DArceri]

A reference to a shared story does not tell you how literal the writer/speaker thinks that story is. Especially when that reference is made within a culture with a very different attitude to less-literal and non-literal genres.

If you want to believe it's literal that's fine - so long as you don't loose its theological and universal meaning - but don't accuse others who don't share that reading as not believing it or of calling Jesus a liar. And don't keep patronisingly assuming that we don't know the O.T.

So if you believe parts of scripture are myth, then why not all of scripture. Again, the NT writers did not think so...So good luck with your your mythology as a christian believer.

 

[ebia]

So if you believe parts of scripture are myth, then why not all of scripture.

Scripture is a huge mix of all sorts of genres. Only Genesis 1-11 (roughly) is structured as myth, and even within that there is a very significant variety of sub-genres.

in, the NT writers did not think so

They wouldn't have attempted to classify things in the way we do, but there is no evidence that they thought the early chapters of Genesis were literal. One generally references a shared story in the same way whether it's thought to be literal or not or somewhere between the two, so one cannot tell from a reference which the referencer thinks.

So good luck with your your mythology as a christian believer.

Someone has sold you duck about what a myth is. A myth can be true (as in Genesis) or false (as in the Babylonian accounts Genesis 1 was written to subvert). How literal something is and how truthful something is are independent variables.

 

[IAmLegion.]

If you are a Christian, you need to know the O.T.!!! It is a lead-in to the N.T. John, Peter, Paul (mine)and all other NT writers knew there O.T. and who the WORD of YHWH was.[/quote]

Yeahh...Paul didnt follow the OT too well. Also, go read the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. the story of Noah's Ark is directly taken from it. Lets do a myth v. literal analysis, with emphasis on the pagan origins of Judaism.

You have a legitimate argument Ebia.

 

[ebia]

Also, go read the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. the story of Noah's Ark is directly taken from it. Lets do a myth v. literal analysis, with emphasis on the pagan origins of Judaism.

And Enuma Elish - which Genesis 1 is written to directly subvert and contradict. I think one has to be careful about talking about "pagan origins of Judaism", but one does have to recognise that the Hebrew people took other people's stories and subverted them to say this is the real God and this is the real state of affairs in the world. They used other people's stories and turned them into the medium for talking about the one true and living God and what that God was doing in and for his creation. Their theology is spot on; that's what these stories are - true theology to correct the false theology of various other pagan groups.

 

[IAmLegion.]

And Enuma Elish - which Genesis 1 is written to directly subvert and contradict. I think one has to be careful about talking about "pagan origins of Judaism", but one does have to recognise that the Hebrew people took other people's stories and subverted them to say this is the real God and this is the real state of affairs in the world. They used other people's stories and turned them into the medium for talking about the one true and living God and what that God was doing in and for his creation. Their theology is spot on; that's what these stories are - true theology to correct the false theology of various other pagan groups.

Solid.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And Enuma Elish - which Genesis 1 is written to directly subvert and contradict. I think one has to be careful about talking about "pagan origins of Judaism", but one does have to recognise that the Hebrew people took other people's stories and subverted them to say this is the real God and this is the real state of affairs in the world. They used other people's stories and turned them into the medium for talking about the one true and living God and what that God was doing in and for his creation. Their theology is spot on; that's what these stories are - true theology to correct the false theology of various other pagan groups.

True, but.

Jeremiah 10:1-16 proclaims the true God as creator, one 'befitting' worship, calling the false worship of idols "vain". But we must believe in faith that this is so, otherwise it's just another opinion.

owg

 

[ebia]

True, but.

Jeremiah 10:1-16 proclaims the true God as creator, one 'befitting' worship, calling the false worship of idols "vain". But we must believe in faith that this is so, otherwise it's just another opinion.

owg

I'm not sure how that's a 'but' to what I said. Maybe I'm missing something in what you said.

In case I wasn't clear, I maintain that Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish are both theological texts but that Enuma Elish is false theology and Genesis 1 is true theology written to counter it..

 

[IAmLegion.]

I'm not sure how that's a 'but' to what I said. Maybe I'm missing something in what you said.

In case I wasn't clear, I maintain that Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish are both theological texts but that Enuma Elish is false theology and Genesis 1 is true theology written to counter it..

and the gilgamesh flood narrative?

 

[DArceri]

Scripture is a huge mix of all sorts of genres. Only Genesis 1-11 (roughly) is structured as myth, and even within that there is a very significant variety of sub-genres.


They wouldn't have attempted to classify things in the way we do, but there is no evidence that they thought the early chapters of Genesis were literal. One generally references a shared story in the same way whether it's thought to be literal or not or somewhere between the two, so one cannot tell from a reference which the referencer thinks.


Someone has sold you duck about what a myth is. A myth can be true (as in Genesis) or false (as in the Babylonian accounts Genesis 1 was written to subvert). How literal something is and how truthful something is are independent variables.

....Then I guess you, as a so-called Christian, believe Luke was sold a duck also. For in Luke 3:23-37 we have the geneology of Christ that extends all the way back to Adam, including your so-called mythological characters from Adam to Noah. Listen you can allegorize or characterize as myth whatever you want, but the N.T. writers all understood the accounts of Genesis to be truth.

 

[ebia]

....Then I guess you, as a so-called Christian, believe Luke was sold a duck also. For in Luke 3:23-37 we have the geneology of Christ that extends all the way back to Adam, including your so-called mythological characters from Adam to Noah.

And, like any other genealogy going back that far, Luke's genealogy isn't meant to be literal - that's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to connect Jesus into the whole biblical story, not to claim all that story as enlightenment-sense history.

Listen you can allegorize or characterize as myth whatever you want, but the N.T. writers all understood the accounts of Genesis to be truth.

Genesis is true. But it's not history.

 

[DArceri]

And, like any other genealogy going back that far, Luke's genealogy isn't meant to be literal - that's not it's purpose. It's purpose is to connect Jesus into the whole biblical story, not to claim all that story as enlightenment-sense history.


Genesis is true. But it's not history.

Says you....LOL

 

[ebia]

Says you....LOL

not just me. Most informed Christians outside the US (and many within).

Says the text itself, for that matter, in it's form. Just as one recognises a hymn, or poetry or law-code or whatever by it's form, one recognises myths by their form(s).

Why on earth would you take an ancient origins text and instead of reading it as an ancient origins text try and read it as a post-enlightenment historical/scientific one?

 

[DArceri]

not just me. Most informed Christians outside the US (and many within).

?

WRONG ANSWER!!!! Many call themselves Christians throughout the world. You are informed by fools who claim to be Christians. Stay with 2000 years of Christians who followed the beliefs of the Apostles.

 

[ebia]

WRONG ANSWER!!!! Many call themselves Christians throughout the world.

Salt on your porridge, sir?

You are informed by fools who claim to be Christians. Stay with 2000 years of Christians who followed the beliefs of the Apostles.

It's not "following the beliefs of the apostles" to think in modes that didn't exist until over a Milennium after they died or apply anachronistic categories to an ancient text. The apostles believed Genesis is true, you believe Genesis is true, and I believe Genesis is true.

You also understand Genesis to be factual, I don't, and the apostles would not have understood the question.

Now, unless you can accept that someone can disagree about the genre of a text and still be in Christ we are done. Healthy discussion is a good thing, insulting people or questioning their faith is not.

 

[DArceri]

Salt on your porridge, sir?


It's not "following the beliefs of the apostles" to think in modes that didn't exist until over a Milennium after they died or apply anachronistic categories to an ancient text. The apostles believed Genesis is true, you believe Genesis is true, and I believe Genesis is true.

You also understand Genesis to be factual, I don't, and the apostles would not have understood the question.

Now, unless you can accept that someone can disagree about the genre of a text and still be in Christ we are done. Healthy discussion is a good thing, insulting people or questioning their faith is not.

You are one of many who allegorize or mythologize scripture away. Nowhere do the O.T. or N.T. writers ever call Genesis just a story. In Mat 23, does Jesus say "As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." or does He say, "As in the parable (or story) of Noah," ........Listen, you are twisting scripture to FIT your belief in some sort of evolutionary theology of some kind. Why in the world would Luke include Adam through Noah in the geneology of Christ along with Mary and Joseph if they were mythological characters. Since geneology is sacred in the Jewish culture AND PROOF to determine ones status in culture and one's potential priesthood, why would Luke fool with destroying Christ's messianic and priestly status by adding mythological characters to His geneology. GET REAL MY FRIEND.

 

[ebia]

You are one of many who allegorize or mythologize scripture away.

1. Not allegorizing - that's something else.
2. Not mythologizing - I'm not turning it into anything, just treating it as what it is. Or, at least, attempting to do that. If I'm wrong, so be it - hopefully I'll work that out eventually, but my motive is to understand the text for what it is. Please do not ascribe other motives.
3. Not away - the theological meaning isn't removed, indeed it becomes clearer

Nowhere do the O.T. or N.T. writers ever call Genesis just a story.

1. It's not just a story. Myth is not a lesser thing than history - that's an enlightenment lie deliberately invented to de-power religion in general and Christianity in particular.
2. They don't need to.
3. They wouldn't be thinking in your categories in the first place, because those categories wouldn't be invented until hundreds of years later.

In Mat 23, does Jesus say "As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of man." or does He say, "As in the parable (or story) of Noah,"

When we talk about story (historical or not) we don't usually label it with it's genre unless (a) that label is part of the name or (b) the person we are talking to isn't familiar with the story. Literal history is not some kind of default genre. The most fundamental genre is story. If I talk to a fellow fan of a TV program about what happened last night I don't bother to mention that it's all fiction, I just plow in with "What do you think about what happened to so and so last night". We talk about shared stories the same way whether they are factual or not, providing they are shared. That's even in true in a modern culture that's obsessed with the difference - how much more true in an ancient one that's more interested in meaning and truth than fact?

........Listen, you are twisting scripture to FIT your belief in some sort of evolutionary theology of some kind.

Sorry, but that simply is not true.

Why in the world would Luke include Adam through Noah in the geneology of Christ along with Mary and Joseph. Since geneology is sacred in the Jewish culture AND PROOF to determine ones status in culture and one's potential priesthood, why would Luke fool with destroying Christ's messianic and priestly status by adding mythological characters to His geneology. GET REAL MY FRIEND.

Because they don't share our culture's obsessions. Like all ancient cultures that take geneologies seriously they aren't fussed about the blurring of fact into myth as one goes back - the geneology is about where one fits in the world, in the previous story, not about academic game with irrelevant facts.

 

[DArceri]

1. Not allegorizing - that's something else.
2. Not mythologizing - I'm not turning it into anything, just treating it as what it is. Or, at least, attempting to do that. If I'm wrong, so be it - hopefully I'll work that out eventually, but my motive is to understand the text for what it is. Please do not ascribe other motives.
3. Not away - the theological meaning isn't removed, indeed it becomes clearer



1. It's not just a story. Myth is not a lesser thing than history - that's an enlightenment lie deliberately invented to de-power religion in general and Christianity in particular.
2. They don't need to.
3. They wouldn't be thinking in your categories in the first place, because those categories wouldn't be invented until hundreds of years later.

When we talk about story (historical or not) we don't usually label it with it's genre unless (a) that label is part of the name or (b) the person we are talking to isn't familiar with the story. Literal history is not some kind of default genre. The most fundamental genre is story. If I talk to a fellow fan of a TV program about what happened last night I don't bother to mention that it's all fiction, I just plow in with "What do you think about what happened to so and so last night". We talk about shared stories the same way whether they are factual or not, providing they are shared. That's even in true in a modern culture that's obsessed with the difference - how much more true in an ancient one that's more interested in meaning and truth than fact?


Sorry, but that simply is not true.



Because they don't share our culture's obsessions. Like all ancient cultures that take geneologies seriously they aren't fussed about the blurring of fact into myth as one goes back - the geneology is about where one fits in the world, in the previous story, not about academic game with irrelevant facts.

OK EBIA, IT'S FUTILE TO GO ON WITH THIS...May your walk in Christ lead you to a greater understanding of Christ's role in Genesis. God Bless.

 

[ebia]

May your walk in Christ lead you to a greater understanding of Christ's role in Genesis. God Bless.

Likewise. God bless.