Paul, instructions and myth.

[-57]

In order to reconcile evolutionism with the bible the Theo-Evo's must take portions of the Word of God and transform it into a "myth". As an example the opening chapters of Genesis are deemed not literal. Never really happened. A myth.

One has to ask the question, if Genesis is a myth then why did Paul base some instructions in a letter to Timothy on how women should conduct themselves in church based upon the order of creation and who was deceived?

1st Timothy 2:12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would Paul base inspired instruction on an event that never happened?

Note: This discussion is not about the roles of women in the church but rather the theological reason Paul used.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

In order to reconcile evolutionism with the bible the Theo-Evo's must take portions of the Word of God and transform it into a "myth". As an example the opening chapters of Genesis are deemed not literal. Never really happened. A myth.

One has to ask the question, if Genesis is a myth then why did Paul base some instructions in a letter to Timothy on how women should conduct themselves in church based upon the order of creation and who was deceived?

1st Timothy 2:12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would Paul base inspired instruction on an event that never happened?

Note: This discussion is not about the roles of women in the church but rather the theological reason Paul used.

One of the challenges with the question is that the concept of "really happened" is extremely loaded with philosophical nuances that must be explored and understood in order to really answer the question. For the modern mind, "really happened" is based on modern assumptions of historicity...e.g., can we through scientific methodology establish to a reasonable extent (another loaded concept) that an event occurred? Through a historical/critical matrix, anything that "didn't happen" is subconsciously given a lesser valuation than that which "did happen"; for the modern mind, historicity equals "truth".

When we approach ancient texts, however, we must be careful not to import these criteria to the texts and force the ancient writers to have modernistic quills. There has been much scholarship over the decades that pretty clearly demonstrates that the evaluation of "history", in the ancient mind and consciousness, was much more fluid of a concept than it is for the modern mind. While we balk at any "truthfulness" existing in that which we deem "non-historical", it wasn't necessarily so for the ancients as they weaved events, myths, oral traditions, and other devices together to craft an understanding of the world in which they lived. If we analyze the Scriptures against other ANE literature, we seem very similar motifs spun throughout.

So the modern mind is left with a conundrum. Do we insist on evaluating the Scriptures on the basis of our philosophical prejudices, regardless of whether these same prejudices were shared by the writers and protagonists of the ancient stories? Or are we able to move beyond our subjective valuations and attempt to understand the Scriptures without trying to make them fit our categories?

To wrap this up and answer your question, then, I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Genesis being understood as belonging to mythical literature. Despite the modern mind's inability to process it, the fact that a writing is mythical does *NOT* mean that it doesn't have meaning or that it is incapable of expressing truth. Given a proper understanding of the role of mythos within ancient life, I don't see that Paul would have a problem or be wrong in basing his instruction on the same.

Thanks

 

[-57]

One of the challenges with the question is that the concept of "really happened" is extremely loaded with philosophical nuances that must be explored and understood in order to really answer the question. For the modern mind, "really happened" is based on modern assumptions of historicity...e.g., can we through scientific methodology establish to a reasonable extent (another loaded concept) that an event occurred? Through a historical/critical matrix, anything that "didn't happen" is subconsciously given a lesser valuation than that which "did happen"; for the modern mind, historicity equals "truth".

When we approach ancient texts, however, we must be careful not to import these criteria to the texts and force the ancient writers to have modernistic quills. There has been much scholarship over the decades that pretty clearly demonstrates that the evaluation of "history", in the ancient mind and consciousness, was much more fluid of a concept than it is for the modern mind. While we balk at any "truthfulness" existing in that which we deem "non-historical", it wasn't necessarily so for the ancients as they weaved events, myths, oral traditions, and other devices together to craft an understanding of the world in which they lived. If we analyze the Scriptures against other ANE literature, we seem very similar motifs spun throughout.

So the modern mind is left with a conundrum. Do we insist on evaluating the Scriptures on the basis of our philosophical prejudices, regardless of whether these same prejudices were shared by the writers and protagonists of the ancient stories? Or are we able to move beyond our subjective valuations and attempt to understand the Scriptures without trying to make them fit our categories?

To wrap this up and answer your question, then, I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Genesis being understood as belonging to mythical literature. Despite the modern mind's inability to process it, the fact that a writing is mythical does *NOT* mean that it doesn't have meaning or that it is incapable of expressing truth. Given a proper understanding of the role of mythos within ancient life, I don't see that Paul would have a problem or be wrong in basing his instruction on the same.

Thanks

alexandriaisburning, You're going to need a little bit more than that for me to see your post as convincing. As I said, I doubt Paul would present instructions based upon an event that didn't happen. Especially an event as theologicaly important as the fall in the garden.

The basics of Christianity is based upon Adam, Eve and the fall. There are many so-called christians who simply dismiss the account of Genesis and trade it in for a Theistic Evolutionary view. You had asked "can we through scientific methodology establish to a reasonable extent (another loaded concept) that an event occurred?" You seem to doubt the existance of Adam and Eve, the garden, serpent, the tree and the disobedient act. The reason, you think science has claimed otherwise. One has to wonder how much of the bible has to be changed or distorted to force it to comply with science, especially evolutionism? Science would completely kill christianity if you let it. But I would imagine somewhere even you draw the line and stick to your guns considering the scientific impossibilities presented in the bible. For example...if you die, on day 3 science says you stay dead. As a christian do you doubt the resurrection? I would have to think you might. How much catagory fitting are you doing?

The Theo-Evo view does major destruction to the bible and you view it as OK to dismiss major portions of the bible from which theology is derived from because you think the modern mind can't process it. The modern mind is indoctrinated into the view that populations evolve and simply over rules Paul when He states sin and death are the result of one man. Christians dismiss the possibility of the immortality of Adam and Eve lost in the garden....but find a way to accept it as their final outcome in Jesus Christ.

Luke when he wrote the book of Acts tells us in Acts 17:26 "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place".......Common sense tells us if the Theo-Evos are correct then Luke is incorrect.

Adam is presented as a literal historical person in the scripture. Enoch is said to be the seventh from Adam. Was Enoch associated with Adam not a literal historical person? Would Jude asociate Enoch with an individual that was a myth? I would think not. Paul associated Adam with Moses. Was Moses also a myth? Paul even associated Adam with Jesus. Should I ask you if Jesus was a myth?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

alexandriaisburning, You're going to need a little bit more than that for me to see your post as convincing. As I said, I doubt Paul would present instructions based upon an event that didn't happen. Especially an event as theologicaly important as the fall in the garden.

Again, you are imposing a rather modern understanding of the notion of "didn't happen" on the text. Do you think Paul understood historicity in the same way that you do? Is it plausible that people throughout history have understood "history" in different ways? The evolution (read "change") of historical philosophy over the centuries would seem to argue that such a conclusion is definitely plausible, if not entirely necessary. If this is the case, then, what "happened" means to you may or may not have a direct correspondence to what the ancient writers (both those of Genesis, as well as Paul) understood, and so it may or may not be appropriate to draw the correlation you are trying to make.

But even if the events "didn't happen" in a modern historical/critical sense, I don't see that that would fundamentally change the meaning of Paul's instruction. After all, quite a large portion of Jesus' teachings and instruction were based on parables (stories that are framed with historical trappings, but are clearly not). Are you going to object that Jesus' teachings should be dismissed because the stories which he told to illustrates his points aren't "historical" in a modern critical sense?

Finally, let's not be overly blinded by the arrogance of modern historical analysis and presume that we have any better way of establishing the "actual-ness" of historical events. While modern methodology has pretty strict structures in place for making analysis, there is still the pesky issue of the subjectivity of mind involved. Regardless of how well we think we have "proven" the "actuality" of an historical event, the analysis and conclusion is still ultimately mediated by presuppositions, interpretation, etc.

The basics of Christianity is based upon Adam, Eve and the fall. There are many so-called christians who simply dismiss the account of Genesis and trade it in for a Theistic Evolutionary view.

I agree that these concepts are a central aspect of Christian theology. However, I disagree that their "historicity" is critical. The concepts and truths communicated by these can still (it would seem) be understood apart from a historical/critical understanding of them.

You had asked "can we through scientific methodology establish to a reasonable extent (another loaded concept) that an event occurred?" You seem to doubt the existance of Adam and Eve, the garden, serpent, the tree and the disobedient act. The reason, you think science has claimed otherwise.

No, I haven't said any such thing. My perspective is that a modern historical-critical reading of the Scriptures is an inappropriate lens for interpretation; therefore, I'm merely arguing that such interpretations should be rejected. However, the rejection is not because "science says otherwise", but rather--and simply--because I think the categories being applied in such an interpretation are inappropriate. The Scriptures are the "book of God's people" not because they are "accurate" or historically "true", but rather because they are "our" book; what any philosophy external to Christian belief says about the Scriptures is wholly irrelevant.

But a more insidious consequence of approaching the Scriptures through the lens of a historical/critical hermeneutic is that you are (perhaps unwittingly) forced into a false position of having to either establish the historical veracity of events in Scripture (which in many cases simply cannot be done because of the postulation of the miraculous) or ignore what useful contributions of philosophy might be available but appear contradictory in order to maintain your presuppositions about the historicity of the text. Both consequences are unnecessary, but are unfortunately the rule today because of the false union of biblical interpretation and modern historical/critical analysis.

One has to wonder how much of the bible has to be changed or distorted to force it to comply with science, especially evolutionism?

Why does it have to comply with science? I'm not advocating that it should be made to do so. In fact, I'm ultimately suggesting that the lens of science shouldn't be brought to the Scriptures at all, as it's an irrelevant lens.

Science would completely kill christianity if you let it. But I would imagine somewhere even you draw the line and stick to your guns considering the scientific impossibilities presented in the bible. For example...if you die, on day 3 science says you stay dead. As a christian do you doubt the resurrection? I would have to think you might. How much catagory fitting are you doing?

Science will kill Christianity only if Christians continue to try to (wrongly) use science to justify their beliefs. Without this union, there is no danger at all, for there is no contradiction between the two.

Regarding the resurrection, I do not doubt it, for it is beyond the domain of science (or human epistemology as a whole) to investigate one way or the other. It is something that must be apprehended by faith, and is thus immune from disproof (but also from proof...).

Luke when he wrote the book of Acts tells us in Acts 17:26 "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place".......Common sense tells us if the Theo-Evos are correct then Luke is incorrect.

If you force Luke to be a modernist, then I suppose you are right. But without such an inappropriate application of this hermeneutic, I see no particular issues.

Adam is presented as a literal historical person in the scripture.

What does "literal historical" person mean? To you and me, indoctrinated into a way of thinking which valuates "historicity" on the basis of observation and demonstration, we arrive at particular conclusion. However, to the ancient mind, the "historicity" of a person was much more fluid. I'd encourage you to research the correlations between the genealogies in Genesis and the "kings lists" of other ANE literature. It would potentially broaden your perspective on how names and personas were commonly used in the religious/political literature of ancient people.

 

[-57]

alexandriaisburning, when I read your post it is as if nothing in the bible really matters. I hear you saying if Paul got it right or wrong it doesn't matter. If Luke got it right or wrong it also doesn't matter.

Your mistake is that it does matter. It's about the scriptures being trustworthy. If the bible is wrong about the origination of sin and human death...then what's the point? If the authors got that wrong....how much of what Jesus did they also get wrong?

The point of the discussion was about Theistic Evolutionism. How the bible dismisses evolutionism. How the events of Genesis are presented as literal and historical. How theology and teachings of scripture are based upon these teachings. How evolutionism forces scripture to become a collection of myths.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

alexandriaisburning, when I read your post it is as if nothing in the bible really matters. I hear you saying if Paul got it right or wrong it doesn't matter. If Luke got it right or wrong it also doesn't matter.

I never said that what's in the Bible doesn't matter. My point is only that linking particular doctrines to external philosophical systems will produce damaging conclusions. That is, if the Scriptures are truly inspired and full of truth, then one need not establish their "historicity" on the basis of modern historical/critical methodology. And in fact, I would argue that seeing the need to establish such proofs is precisely that which is denying the authority and veracity of Scripture.

Your mistake is that it does matter. It's about the scriptures being trustworthy. If the bible is wrong about the origination of sin and human death...then what's the point? If the authors got that wrong....how much of what Jesus did they also get wrong?

Again, you are linking the determination of "getting it wrong" on a very specific set of philosophical criteria, criteria to which the writers of Scripture may or may not (and probably didn't) subscribe. Ultimately, the origination of "sin" is not a purely phenomenological event that can be investigated by any tools of modern historical analysis. So I'm not entirely sure how one could even go about determining whether they were "right" or "wrong" about it, even if we assume that the tools we have for making such an exploration are credible.

The point of the discussion was about Theistic Evolutionism. How the bible dismisses evolutionism. How the events of Genesis are presented as literal and historical. How theology and teachings of scripture are based upon these teachings. How evolutionism forces scripture to become a collection of myths.

First, you are playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of "literality". The notion of "literalism" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and is has not so much to do with an understanding of history as it does with the intention of the author. Let's say that the writers of Genesis were recording a creation myth that was "theologized" to support their understanding of Yahweh. If this is so, then a mythological reading of Genesis is *precisely* the literal reading, and a reading which interjects a historical/critical hermeneutic would be the non-literal reading. So which is it? Did the ancient writers pen the creation narrative in the milieu of modern assumptions about history, or did they have a different understanding? An analysis of the Genesis narratives against other creation narratives in ANE literature would seem to suggest that they had different understandings and intentions in how they constructed the narrative.

Second, evolutionary theory does not force the Scriptures to become a collection of myths. Your modern prejudices are showing by insinuating that there is something wrong with the Scriptures containing mythical literature. What if the ancient writers embraced mythos and included it as a way of communicating theological (not necessarily "historical") truths about God? Why would this eliminate the Scriptures from being "inspired"? Can the inspiration of Scripture only be validated if we use the very narrow and subjective tools of modern epistemology? No, it is not evolutionary theory that undermines the Scriptures; it is bad thinking about what the Scriptures are and how they should be used that does these things.

 

[-57]

I never said that what's in the Bible doesn't matter. My point is only that linking particular doctrines to external philosophical systems will produce damaging conclusions. That is, if the Scriptures are truly inspired and full of truth, then one need not establish their "historicity" on the basis of modern historical/critical methodology. And in fact, I would argue that seeing the need to establish such proofs is precisely that which is denying the authority and veracity of Scripture.



Again, you are linking the determination of "getting it wrong" on a very specific set of philosophical criteria, criteria to which the writers of Scripture may or may not (and probably didn't) subscribe. Ultimately, the origination of "sin" is not a purely phenomenological event that can be investigated by any tools of modern historical analysis. So I'm not entirely sure how one could even go about determining whether they were "right" or "wrong" about it, even if we assume that the tools we have for making such an exploration are credible.



First, you are playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of "literality". The notion of "literalism" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and is has not so much to do with an understanding of history as it does with the intention of the author. Let's say that the writers of Genesis were recording a creation myth that was "theologized" to support their understanding of Yahweh. If this is so, then a mythological reading of Genesis is *precisely* the literal reading, and a reading which interjects a historical/critical hermeneutic would be the non-literal reading. So which is it? Did the ancient writers pen the creation narrative in the milieu of modern assumptions about history, or did they have a different understanding? An analysis of the Genesis narratives against other creation narratives in ANE literature would seem to suggest that they had different understandings and intentions in how they constructed the narrative.

Second, evolutionary theory does not force the Scriptures to become a collection of myths. Your modern prejudices are showing by insinuating that there is something wrong with the Scriptures containing mythical literature. What if the ancient writers embraced mythos and included it as a way of communicating theological (not necessarily "historical") truths about God? Why would this eliminate the Scriptures from being "inspired"? Can the inspiration of Scripture only be validated if we use the very narrow and subjective tools of modern epistemology? No, it is not evolutionary theory that undermines the Scriptures; it is bad thinking about what the Scriptures are and how they should be used that does these things.

Don't take this wrong...but you're not saying much.
As I have said before and you haven't really addressed is Genesis is presented as LITERAL and HISTORICAL in the bible. The resurrection is also presented as LITERAL and HISTORICAL in the bible and many have used arguments such as your argument to create a theology where there was no resurrection.

For those types of people I can say....have it your way then.

Just as Paul bases his theology on the literal and historical resurrection of Jesus..and not a myth...as well as many other tenets of the faith...it seem highly impracticable that Paul would base his direction to women based upon an event that didn't happen.

Paul wrote that Adam was created FIRST the Eve was created.......evolutionism doesn't teach this.
Paul taught Eve was deceived and not Adam......evolutionism doesn't. Heck, Theo-Evoism doesn't even really have much of an idea as to why humans sin and need Jesus. Paul does.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Don't take this wrong...but you're not saying much.
As I have said before and you haven't really addressed is Genesis is presented as LITERAL and HISTORICAL in the bible. The resurrection is also presented as LITERAL and HISTORICAL in the bible and many have used arguments such as your argument to create a theology where there was no resurrection.

So what is your definition of "literal" and "historical"? Since you place so much weight on these concepts being evident in Scripture, you should be able to precisely the define the criteria by which you can establish whether or not the Scriptures are written in this way. If you are using modern conceptions of "historical", you should be aware that you can not simply give intellectual assent to the idea that "this event can be scientifically demonstrated to have occurred"; you actually need to provide the demonstration. Are you prepared to do this? Are you willing to make the Scriptures wholly dependent upon scientific methodology for the validation of their inspiration?

Just as Paul bases his theology on the literal and historical resurrection of Jesus..and not a myth...as well as many other tenets of the faith...it seem highly impracticable that Paul would base his direction to women based upon an event that didn't happen.

This is only a necessary conclusion (and even then, perhaps not "necessary") if we assume that Paul held the same modern conceptions of historicity that you seem to espouse. Can you demonstrate that he was a modernist, philosophically?

But even then, you are making a sweeping equivocation of all of Paul's instructions, requiring that he utilizes only one methodology in the articulation of his arguments. I think this is rather narrow reading of Paul, regardless of whether the argument is applicable in this one particular instance.

Paul wrote that Adam was created FIRST the Eve was created.......evolutionism doesn't teach this.
Paul taught Eve was deceived and not Adam......evolutionism doesn't. Heck, Theo-Evoism doesn't even really have much of an idea as to why humans sin and need Jesus. Paul does.

I disagree. There is ample scholarship that elucidates notions of human sin and the need for redemption against the backdrop of biological evolution. If you would study these concepts a little before dismissing them with generalizations, you would probably see that your claim is quite spurious.

 

[-57]

alexandriaisburning, So what is your definition of "literal" and "historical"? Since you place so much weight on these concepts being evident in Scripture, you should be able to precisely the define the criteria by which you can establish whether or not the Scriptures are written in this way. If you are using modern conceptions of "historical", you should be aware that you can not simply give intellectual assent to the idea that "this event can be scientifically demonstrated to have occurred"; you actually need to provide the demonstration. Are you prepared to do this? Are you willing to make the Scriptures wholly dependent upon scientific methodology for the validation of their inspiration?

Literal and Historical.....George Washington crossing the Delaware River. Adam walking in the Garden of Eden.

I wasn't there when George crossed the Delaware River....but I do trust the history books.
I wasn't there when Adam walked in the Garden..but I do trust the Word of God. For some reason, you don't.

This is only a necessary conclusion (and even then, perhaps not "necessary") if we assume that Paul held the same modern conceptions of historicity that you seem to espouse. Can you demonstrate that he was a modernist, philosophically?

I don't have to. The bible simply says what it says....no need to translate it through your modernist view.

But even then, you are making a sweeping equivocation of all of Paul's instructions, requiring that he utilizes only one methodology in the articulation of his arguments. I think this is rather narrow reading of Paul, regardless of whether the argument is applicable in this one particular instance.

Then provide an example...or retract the last statement.

I disagree. There is ample scholarship that elucidates notions of human sin and the need for redemption against the backdrop of biological evolution. If you would study these concepts a little before dismissing them with generalizations, you would probably see that your claim is quite spurious.

Your so-called ample biological descent with modification evolutionary scholarship.....still fails to explain "original sin". The bible doesn't.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Literal and Historical.....George Washington crossing the Delaware River. Adam walking in the Garden of Eden.

I wasn't there when George crossed the Delaware River....but I do trust the history books.
I wasn't there when Adam walked in the Garden..but I do trust the Word of God. For some reason, you don't.

I'm not sure why you'd "trust" a history book--they have contained inaccuracies before. Trusting what a history book says and arguing that George Washington crossing the Delaware "happened" are two entirely different things. Surely you realize that.

I don't have to. The bible simply says what it says....no need to translate it through your modernist view.

Yes, the bible "says what it says", but you still have to interpret it through the philosophical prejudices that you bring to the reading of the Scriptures. Which is why you are getting hung up on categories of biblical genre and their place within your philosophy's valuation of historicity.

 

[-57]

I'm not sure why you'd "trust" a history book--they have contained inaccuracies before. Trusting what a history book says and arguing that George Washington crossing the Delaware "happened" are two entirely different things. Surely you realize that.



Yes, the bible "says what it says", but you still have to interpret it through the philosophical prejudices that you bring to the reading of the Scriptures. Which is why you are getting hung up on categories of biblical genre and their place within your philosophy's valuation of historicity.

Yes, I admit some portions are hard to interpret and we can bring certain biases to scripture. An example would be verses such as Gen 6:2....the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
That subject is mentioned once in scripture and pregnate with possibilities. A bias can easily be introduced into explaining what that verse means.

On the other hand there are subjects/topic in scripture that are wrote about in several or more than several places. When these verses are looked at as a whole on a topic....the bias quickly drops and understanding of the verses increases.

Concerning Adam and Eve, the garden, fall etc....the whole of scripture presents the account as quite historical and literal. I have shown that to be so in numerous ways using numerous verses. You have failed to show why the authors of scripture would have presented them in a different fashion.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

When these verses are looked at as a whole on a topic....the bias quickly drops and understanding of the verses increases.

That sounds grand in theory, but is self-deception in practice. The only way to get a "birds-eye view" interpretation is through the same subjective interpretive filters as those which you would apply to the "hard" verses. Biases in interpretation cannot be avoided, as they are intrinsic to the subjectivity of mind. The best that can be hoped for is an "eyes-open" accounting of the biases that you (realize you) are bringing to the text.

Concerning Adam and Eve, the garden, fall etc....the whole of scripture presents the account as quite historical and literal. I have shown that to be so in numerous ways using numerous verses. You have failed to show why the authors of scripture would have presented them in a different fashion.

You understand the account as being presented as "historical" and "literal" because this is what you expect them to present via your modernistic assumptions of the valuation of history. You come with the presupposition that the Scriptures are "true"--therefore, you utilize the tools which your philosophy suggests will establish the "truth" of Scripture; one of these tools is historical/critical analysis. However, when the very tools you trust to establish the "truth" of Scripture present you with an unpalatable conclusion (e.g., some of the literature is "mythic"), you suddenly criticize the very tools you used, leaving you in the awkwardly self-contradictory position that you have presented thus far.

 

[-57]

You understand the account as being presented as "historical" and "literal" because this is what you expect them to present via your modernistic assumptions of the valuation of history.

That's the way they have been understood since they have been written down. Literal and true.

The onus is on you to show why scripture in other portions of the bible pertaining to the accounts presented in Genesis are not presented by the authors as literal and historical.....The onus is on you to show that I have force the ancient writers to have modernistic quills.

To be completely honest I think the simple reading of scripture present you with an unpalatable conclusion...would you like to reveal what that is?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

That's the way they have been understood since they have been written down. Literal and true.

Yes, I understand that is your presupposition. But that does nothing to establish your claim.

The onus is on you to show why scripture in other portions of the bible pertaining to the accounts presented in Genesis are not presented by the authors as literal and historical.....The onus is on you to show that I have force the ancient writers to have modernistic quills.

How convenient! You claim that the Genesis accounts are "literal" and "historical" (which presupposes a requirement of validation under modern conceptions of historicity), but try to deflect responsibility for establishing this to someone else. How wonderfully tautological your beliefs are!

 

[Hoghead1]

1. 
   
   \
   
   
   
   
   As I have said before, and will say again, I do not think Genesis can be taken as literal, scientific, or historical.
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scence, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos. ;

 

[-57]

Yes, I understand that is your presupposition. But that does nothing to establish your claim.



How convenient! You claim that the Genesis accounts are "literal" and "historical" (which presupposes a requirement of validation under modern conceptions of historicity), but try to deflect responsibility for establishing this to someone else. How wonderfully tautological your beliefs are!

Wrong. My claims are supported by the biblical text. I have provided several examples. Those examples were denied by you because you say modern conceptions of historicity hasn't validated it. You are begining to sound like a broken record skipping back and repeating an unsupported statement.

Once again I have to say to you "The onus is on you to show why scripture in other portions of the bible pertaining to the accounts presented in Genesis are not presented by the authors as literal and historical.....The onus is on you to show that I have force the ancient writers to have modernistic quills." Your "How convenient!" just runs around the issue and never really addressed it.

 

[-57]

1. 
   
   
   As I have said before, and will say again, I do not think Genesis can be taken as literal, scientific, or historical.
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts.
2. Rest snipped.

Hoghead1,
Let me reply to your above statement first.

Do you know that if I apply this logic to other portions of the bible....that is modern scientific accounts are allowed to change scripture...and stick within my "narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible" as you put it...it would be real easy to say the resurrection of Jesus Christ didn't really happen because modern science tells us if you die you will remain dead on day 3.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Wrong. My claims are supported by the biblical text.

Your claims are supported by your interpretation of the biblical text, which is a hopelessly tautological mess. How you cannot see this is befuddling.

Furthermore, I never made any claims regarding whether or not modern historical criticism has or has not validated the "literality" of the Genesis account. You were the one making claims about that, and I have merely been responding to the false propositions which you have been setting up. Perhaps you should more closely analyze the arguments that you are making, rather than putting words into my mouth in order to prop up your foundationless arguments.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.

Regarding the chronologies in Genesis, I believe they were compiled for theological/political reasons, not historical ones. If you analyze the chronologies of Genesis (including the extreme length of lives) against other chronologies in ANE literature of the time (for example, Sumerian kings lists), you'll find some interesting parallels. The numerology at play, both in the kings lists and the Genesis chronologies, seems to indicates that the "lengths of reign" assigned to the kings/patriarchs was not intended to describe actual ages, but rather express some meaning based on the calculations applied.

Modern brains can't understand this, because when we see a notation that "X lived Y years", we assumed the author is trying to record "history" as we understand it. However, as we see through the Scriptures in regards to numerology, the "historical" is not necessarily the primary motivation in the construction of narrative.

 

[-57]

Your claims are supported by your interpretation of the biblical text, which is a hopelessly tautological mess. How you cannot see this is befuddling.

Furthermore, I never made any claims regarding whether or not modern historical criticism has or has not validated the "literality" of the Genesis account. You were the one making claims about that, and I have merely been responding to the false propositions which you have been setting up. Perhaps you should more closely analyze the arguments that you are making, rather than putting words into my mouth in order to prop up your foundationless arguments.

When you can provide evidence that my proposition is false and the scriptures do not present a literal interpretation of Genesis..after seeing scripture where the accounts of Genesis are presented in a literal fashion....get back to me. The onos has been on you for several rounds of this discussion and you have failed to do so.