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.
The notion that something can be "artistic enough" to be exalted that highly in spite of its narrative (not copyist) error is very strange to me.
The notion of fiction being an error is very strange to me. It's a bit like saying that Dickens is in error because Oliver Twist didn't exist. There are no narrative errors in the creation stories; it's just that they happen to be fictional, rather than historical.
Perhaps if you had the faith of mustard, 'the smallest of all seeds' you would be less troubled by narrative error and artistic licence.
CSLewis really blew it then.No, its like Dickens being in error if England didn't exist.
No, its more like Encyclopedia Britanica writing about leprechauns.
No, its more like Darwin writing about evolution.
And maybe mustard seeds are much smaller than they look too?Do I sound troubled?
Maybe you shouldn't be troubled that the earth is much younger than it seems.
Note to self: Do not use oxen for ark transportation.
No, its like Dickens being in error if England didn't exist.
Why is it that none of this made it into the Old Testament? Are the myths of the Bible of common origin? :o
These are the nephillim.
Genesis chapter 6,
pyramid mystery solved. they even left us their photo's on some walls and such.
Apparently I love a tall tale as much as you, and the Nephilim are fun, fun, fun.
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html
But, the Bible has some, but pretty much of a passing interest in the subject. Overcoming giants is far more interesting than who they were and where they came from. A lot of the mythology and legend that wen along with them is omitted from the Bible. This has saved our TE friends a lot of trouble, since they needn't work so hard to disprove another fantastic tale. But it is another example of the fact that the BIble is not a gloss on local legend, its content was carefully selected to be the message itself. Its selection of content is original, not a variation on a theme by the neighboring baby-roasters.
Sure are alot of words here to just say you don't believe what's written in the bible.
Do you realise what you just said?
Do you realise what you just said?
But of course.
I am not interested in tip toeing around ideas, so I don't really care if what I say is misused. It is only in the TE world and other fundamentalistgroups that would use Gen. 6 to abuse Gen. 1.
Apparently I love a tall tale as much as you, and the Nephilim are fun, fun, fun.
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html
But, the Bible has some, but pretty much of a passing interest in the subject. Overcoming giants is far more interesting than who they were and where they came from. A lot of the mythology and legend that wen along with them is omitted from the Bible. This has saved our TE friends a lot of trouble, since they needn't work so hard to disprove another fantastic tale. But it is another example of the fact that the BIble is not a gloss on local legend, its content was carefully selected to be the message itself. Its selection of content is original, not a variation on a theme by the neighboring baby-roasters.
One of my favorite words to describe this is that God subverted the literary stories of the Israelites' contemporaries to impart His truth. (And C.S. Lewis has called God subversive before I was even born; I am simply standing on the shoulders of giants.) Did He copy them wholesale? Certainly not; and yet by incorporating familiar elements from familiar stories He got them to think sharply and critically about how God had theologically set them apart from other cultures.
You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the common origin view held by many TE's (including myself). What I believe, and what I think the evidence supports, is that the ancient Israelites were very aware of the myths of other cultures - Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Persian - and much of their understanding of the nature of the universe came from those myths. When they wrote the books of the Bible, they wrote them from the viewpoint of that understanding...their purpose was to remove the supernatural elements attributed to other gods and to show how God was behind it all.
You start off trying to argue against the notion that there was a common mythic basis from which Genesis originated. But in the end you say the stories in Genesis are drawn from local myth, but that the difference comes in the way the myth was selected and edited to give a completely new message.
This is exactly what people like shernren and crawfish have been telling you.
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?