You keep saying "as written", even though in this argument that is completely begging the question. If a text was written to be read figuratively, then THAT is how it was written. That is like saying we must treat the tree in my poet's poem as a literal, arboreal tree, and then insisting that this is just taking it "as written". No, the "as written" for the poet is as a symbol.
Now, looking at the "all flesh", and setting aside for the moment the alternative reading that God is just using an existing flood story for his literary vehicle, if "kol erets" all the way through is talking about a local area rather than the entire planet (again, local is the most common usage), then look back to what he said about who died in the flood, as in 7:21. It was all those on "the earth", which means "the land", which is used locally most often. So, when it comes time for the covenant, it must be read to relate back to what actually happened.
But, really, I think that it is very possible that the author IS telling the story from the perspective of a global flood, since this is how the story was handed down. But I don't think that the actual historical reality needs to have been a global flood in order to make this "OK". It would be entirely appropriate for God to allow the story to expanded from the local flood that it was to to be told in a much more expansive manner, since exact historicity simply is not important.
This is the part you don't seem to be getting: the covenant is the covenant, whether the historical events are exactly as described or not. God is telling us something. He is telling us what is contained in the covenant. We must accept that covenant and hold it to our hearts. I just can't fathom why you would think that the validity of a covenant from God is somehow dependant upon the historical accuracy of the story within which He chooses to give us the covenant.
And as for why I beleive some of it is literal is because the nature of the text, and the theological imperatives, lead to that conclusion. Jesus is not a fable for both of these reasons. The nature of the text is convincing on this point, and theologically, Jesus' reality is compelled. And in the case of Jesus, there is the added element of the personal relationship with Him that confirms His existence for me.
Again, exactly HOW is Genesis set up as a history book in every chapter. It contains a number of different styles of presentation, so please explain what literary and cultural features inform you that it was meant to be read as literal and completely accurate history?
I really do think that part of the problem is that our modern society, since the Enlightenment, places a greater value of literal history as a medium for presentation of important truths. In fact, we have gotten to the point that we only see a text as valid only to the extent we can view it as historically accurate. This is COMPLETELY different than how the ancients viewed writings about their past. This is why some groups within the Church (not all by a long shot) have come to read the text more and more literally as we go along. Especially here in the US with the Fundamentalist movement.
Now, looking at the "all flesh", and setting aside for the moment the alternative reading that God is just using an existing flood story for his literary vehicle, if "kol erets" all the way through is talking about a local area rather than the entire planet (again, local is the most common usage), then look back to what he said about who died in the flood, as in 7:21. It was all those on "the earth", which means "the land", which is used locally most often. So, when it comes time for the covenant, it must be read to relate back to what actually happened.
But, really, I think that it is very possible that the author IS telling the story from the perspective of a global flood, since this is how the story was handed down. But I don't think that the actual historical reality needs to have been a global flood in order to make this "OK". It would be entirely appropriate for God to allow the story to expanded from the local flood that it was to to be told in a much more expansive manner, since exact historicity simply is not important.
This is the part you don't seem to be getting: the covenant is the covenant, whether the historical events are exactly as described or not. God is telling us something. He is telling us what is contained in the covenant. We must accept that covenant and hold it to our hearts. I just can't fathom why you would think that the validity of a covenant from God is somehow dependant upon the historical accuracy of the story within which He chooses to give us the covenant.
And as for why I beleive some of it is literal is because the nature of the text, and the theological imperatives, lead to that conclusion. Jesus is not a fable for both of these reasons. The nature of the text is convincing on this point, and theologically, Jesus' reality is compelled. And in the case of Jesus, there is the added element of the personal relationship with Him that confirms His existence for me.
Again, exactly HOW is Genesis set up as a history book in every chapter. It contains a number of different styles of presentation, so please explain what literary and cultural features inform you that it was meant to be read as literal and completely accurate history?
I really do think that part of the problem is that our modern society, since the Enlightenment, places a greater value of literal history as a medium for presentation of important truths. In fact, we have gotten to the point that we only see a text as valid only to the extent we can view it as historically accurate. This is COMPLETELY different than how the ancients viewed writings about their past. This is why some groups within the Church (not all by a long shot) have come to read the text more and more literally as we go along. Especially here in the US with the Fundamentalist movement.
Upvote
0
