Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[Speedwell]

Actually you have it backwards. I hold true to the text. It's those that claim the text doesn't mean what it says are the ones who show faith.

Did you understand what I meant the other day when I said that I favored a "Patristic" view of scripture? Did you read the Fathers at that university of yours?

 

[rjs330]

Indeed. You would know, since the whole of your argument is a giant circle.



I have as much proof for it as you do in suggesting that "Moses" was the first person to write down this information. Obviously, there's no way to directly validate the claim. However, the reasoning is based off of deduction of the known information, as well as by studying how stories have been transmitted and preserved throughout human history when no other means of recording them are readily available. Additionally, when we see remarkable similarities in structure, content, and style between the Genesis creation narrative and earlier, "outside" creation epics, the most logical conclusion is that there is a material correlation between them. You reject this notion, of course, because it violates your presupposition about what the nature of "inspiration" should be (yes, an invention of your own mind); however, the preponderance of scholarship and evidence suggests otherwise. This doesn't mean, of course, that the Scriptures aren't "inspired"; it only means that the definition of "inspiration" that you wish to force upon Scripture does not cohere with what we know about the origin and evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures and the contents therein.



I don't dismiss inspiration. There is just simply no reason, from the perspective of analyzing the text, to assume "inspiration". Moreover, since we know of no other "inspired" texts, we don't really have a good set of criteria for recognizing inspired texts. Therefore, not only is the assumption of inspiration unnecessary when approaching the Scriptures as text, the actual imposition of such an assumption and "metric" is faulty as one will necessarily have to produce a definition of "inspiration" and then retroactively apply it to the analysis of the text. This is circular reasoning, something at which you have shown yourself to be quite adept.



Again, you can assert this proposition all you like; there is simply no way of demonstrating that it is a valid mark of the Scriptures. You keep asking for "proof" of things, but your own position is entirely incapable of the same. The understanding of the Scriptures as "inspired" can only be apprehended by faith; it is not a physical attribute of them that can be analyzed and demonstrated.



There's also no biblical evidence that it *wasn't* a myth. You can make the voices within the Scripture sound like modern, western thinkers all you like; however, when they were speaking of the creation story, there's no evidence to suggest that they shared the same presuppositions about historicity that you and I do...unless, of course, we are suggesting that the hermeneutic of the Holy Spirit is that of a modern, western thinker. In which case...how entirely convenient for you!



This is a complete misrepresentation of what I and Speedwell have been saying. Perhaps you are jumping to hyperbole because you know you are losing this argument...such is a pretty typical tactic.

We are not suggesting that the Scriptures are "just like" the rest of ANE literature, nor that they should be ignored or "relegated" to being an "old, ancient" writing. They are, of course, "old" and "ancient". However, they are also unique, beautiful, and still speak to us from the distant past. The point, however, is that we shouldn't expect them to speak with our voices, or to fit our "categories" of thinking.



Round and a-round the circle we go...

Indeed. You would know, since the whole of your argument is a giant circle.



I have as much proof for it as you do in suggesting that "Moses" was the first person to write down this information. Obviously, there's no way to directly validate the claim. However, the reasoning is based off of deduction of the known information, as well as by studying how stories have been transmitted and preserved throughout human history when no other means of recording them are readily available. Additionally, when we see remarkable similarities in structure, content, and style between the Genesis creation narrative and earlier, "outside" creation epics, the most logical conclusion is that there is a material correlation between them. You reject this notion, of course, because it violates your presupposition about what the nature of "inspiration" should be (yes, an invention of your own mind); however, the preponderance of scholarship and evidence suggests otherwise. This doesn't mean, of course, that the Scriptures aren't "inspired"; it only means that the definition of "inspiration" that you wish to force upon Scripture does not cohere with what we know about the origin and evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures and the contents therein.



I don't dismiss inspiration. There is just simply no reason, from the perspective of analyzing the text, to assume "inspiration". Moreover, since we know of no other "inspired" texts, we don't really have a good set of criteria for recognizing inspired texts. Therefore, not only is the assumption of inspiration unnecessary when approaching the Scriptures as text, the actual imposition of such an assumption and "metric" is faulty as one will necessarily have to produce a definition of "inspiration" and then retroactively apply it to the analysis of the text. This is circular reasoning, something at which you have shown yourself to be quite adept.



Again, you can assert this proposition all you like; there is simply no way of demonstrating that it is a valid mark of the Scriptures. You keep asking for "proof" of things, but your own position is entirely incapable of the same. The understanding of the Scriptures as "inspired" can only be apprehended by faith; it is not a physical attribute of them that can be analyzed and demonstrated.



There's also no biblical evidence that it *wasn't* a myth. You can make the voices within the Scripture sound like modern, western thinkers all you like; however, when they were speaking of the creation story, there's no evidence to suggest that they shared the same presuppositions about historicity that you and I do...unless, of course, we are suggesting that the hermeneutic of the Holy Spirit is that of a modern, western thinker. In which case...how entirely convenient for you!



This is a complete misrepresentation of what I and Speedwell have been saying. Perhaps you are jumping to hyperbole because you know you are losing this argument...such is a pretty typical tactic.

We are not suggesting that the Scriptures are "just like" the rest of ANE literature, nor that they should be ignored or "relegated" to being an "old, ancient" writing. They are, of course, "old" and "ancient". However, they are also unique, beautiful, and still speak to us from the distant past. The point, however, is that we shouldn't expect them to speak with our voices, or to fit our "categories" of thinking.



Round and a-round the circle we go...

And what do you know of the evolution of Hebrew scriptures? Please share with me what evolution of scriptures mean you and provide evidence,of that evolution andbjow it applies,to Genesis. You still have,offered no evidence that the scriptures that Moses wrote were taken from,other sources. It's speculation. Its on you to prove the theory. Take a look at Genesis. Its a book written in Chronological form with specific people doing specific things in an order that flows into Exodus which is also written in a historical form. The very language and structure of the book leads to the historicity of the book. There are no other ancient Hebrew writing that contradict Genesis. There is no known Hebrew writings that contradict the historical nature of Genesis.

Please note that God told,Moses to write. That's inspiration. Judges Kings, Ezra and other books refer to Moses as,being the author of the Pentateuch. Moses writing under the direction of God. Moses himself under the direction of God said that God created in six days.

Chronicles lists the generations of people starting with Adam leading to credence of the historical nature of Genesis. Paul spoke of Adam being the first human being also,lending credence to the historical nature of Genesis. Jesus spoke of Moses and the Pentateuch.

I'm not speaking in just hyperbole to you. I'm trying to open your eyes to,the unique nature of scripture in comparison to all other ANE. It's not in any way shape or form like other ANE because God told Moses to,write under his direction. No other writing can make that claim.

Like I said there is no ancient Hebrew literature that can remotely give credence to the thought that Genesis is not historical. The language of Genesis combined with scripture written by the prophets and the apostles confirm it's historicity. You have no ancient Hebrew writings that suggest otherwise.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

And what do you know of the evolution of Hebrew scriptures? Please share with me what evolution of scriptures mean you and provide evidence,of that evolution andbjow it applies,to Genesis.

Read a book or two. There are volumes of books related to the literary structures of the Hebrew Scriptures, possibly chronologies for them, as well as "profiles" of the sources that may have had a hand in the composition, editing, and transmission of the Scriptures over the years. There are ADDITIONALLY volumes and volumes dedicated to the textual analysis of the ancient Hebrew texts alongside the relevant literature of the broader cultural/political/religious context in which the Scriptures were written.

Obviously, none of this is absolutely certain (in the same way as your assertions, although MUCH less circular), but it's not like I'm just making things up off the top of my head.

You still have,offered no evidence that the scriptures that Moses wrote were taken from,other sources

First, it's your assertion (not mine) that Moses authored the Genesis creation epic. Second, I have, in fact, shown some simple examples of how significantly older creation epics influenced both the structure and content (although not necessarily the theological content) of the narrative. I could go into much more detail, but there's no need. You have to be deliberately ignorant of the relevant information (or insulated by a circularly justifying hermeneutic) to not see the common structures.

It's speculation. Its on you to prove the theory.

And what would constitute sufficient proof to break apart your biases? You don't care about even taking the briefest look at the creation epic in Genesis and comparing it to more ancient, non-biblical creation epics. Why? Are you perhaps concerned that if you see the similarities with your own eyes that you may start to doubt the protection of circularly fulfilling biases with which you've surrounded yourself? Or are you just too lazy to bother? An open mind, it would seem, would be willing and glad to take on the challenge; unwillingness, on the other hand, would seem to be a sign of a mind wanting to go to sleep.

Take a look at Genesis. Its a book written in Chronological form with specific people doing specific things in an order that flows into Exodus which is also written in a historical form.

First, I've been speaking *particularly* about the creation epic in the first few chapters of Genesis. I would be the first to suggest that the book of Genesis is a conglomeration of a number of literary genres. To lump the entire book into a singular category of genre is simply a sign of ignorance.

Secondly, there is a difference--as I've been suggesting--between that which appears to have an "historical" form and that which is recorded with the intent of reporting the "actual-happened-ness" of events. The distinction is critically important, as it relies upon very modern, western notions of historicity that views "history" through the lens of a very particular and unique set of presuppositions about the nature of verifiability, the general structure and processes of the universe, etc.

My argument, to the contrary, is that the ancients did not necessarily share these biases and presuppositions. Did they imbue history with "truth" based on the verifiability of the "happened-ness" of the events (and if so, what were the criteria for that?)? Or was the "truth of history" gleaned from other sources? For example, from the witness and authority of previous generations?

The very language and structure of the book leads to the historicity of the book.

This is your opinion. It is an opinion that is not shared by many who actually understand the full range of issues involved with interpretation, but hey, you're welcome to continue on in your willful ignorance.

There are no other ancient Hebrew writing that contradict Genesis.

And? Why would we expect there to be contradictions? Contradicting one's religious writings is not the best way to perpetuate the hegemony of religious and political power.

There is no known Hebrew writings that contradict the historical nature of Genesis.

It would be hard for ancient Hebrew writings to contradict the "historical" nature of Genesis when the ones who would be contradicting it did not share the presuppositions that you do regarding historicity.

Please note that God told,Moses to write. That's inspiration. Judges Kings, Ezra and other books refer to Moses as,being the author of the Pentateuch. Moses writing under the direction of God. Moses himself under the direction of God said that God created in six days.

This is wholly irrelevant to the conversation, for there is absolutely no reason to assume that the content of "inspired" literature should correspond to a modern, western assumption about its historicity. Your logic, as circular as it is, is simply and hopelessly broken.

Chronicles lists the generations of people starting with Adam leading to credence of the historical nature of Genesis.

Lots of ancient writings did this, and they also traced their "patriarchs" (typically "kings" in other ANE lists). The necessary relationship between the Chronicles lists and the kings lists in Genesis is only relevant if one assumes that the person writing it holds to a strict conception of historicity like that of modern, western thinkers. As we have no reason to believe the authors of these documents held such ideas (and many reasons, which I've already outlined, to think otherwise), your logic, again, is simply flimsy.

Paul spoke of Adam being the first human being also,lending credence to the historical nature of Genesis. Jesus spoke of Moses and the Pentateuch.

Please review my previous post about the "mythological" usage of personages. There is still nothing in your argument that demands a modern, western interpretation of the "historicity" of the creation narrative.

I'm trying to open your eyes to,the unique nature of scripture in comparison to all other ANE.

I don't disagree that it's unique. But it's also derivative in some parts. I don't have a problem with that, and I certainly don't think it detracts from the inspiredness of the Scriptures.

It's not in any way shape or form like other ANE because God told Moses to,write under his direction. No other writing can make that claim.

Other writings do make that claim. And the proof for the "divine" authorship of those documents is precisely the same as for the Scriptures...there is none. This doesn't mean the Scriptures aren't inspired; however, there is simply no way to demonstrate that they are, and it is certainly no reason to justify applying extremely poor and ignorant hermeneutical methods to the interpretation of Scripture, simply to justify the pull of your own personal biases.

 

[rjs330]

Read a book or two. There are volumes of books related to the literary structures of the Hebrew Scriptures, possibly chronologies for them, as well as "profiles" of the sources that may have had a hand in the composition, editing, and transmission of the Scriptures over the years. There are ADDITIONALLY volumes and volumes dedicated to the textual analysis of the ancient Hebrew texts alongside the relevant literature of the broader cultural/political/religious context in which the Scriptures were written.

Obviously, none of this is absolutely certain (in the same way as your assertions, although MUCH less circular), but it's not like I'm just making things up off the top of my head.



First, it's your assertion (not mine) that Moses authored the Genesis creation epic. Second, I have, in fact, shown some simple examples of how significantly older creation epics influenced both the structure and content (although not necessarily the theological content) of the narrative. I could go into much more detail, but there's no need. You have to be deliberately ignorant of the relevant information (or insulated by a circularly justifying hermeneutic) to not see the common structures.



And what would constitute sufficient proof to break apart your biases? You don't care about even taking the briefest look at the creation epic in Genesis and comparing it to more ancient, non-biblical creation epics. Why? Are you perhaps concerned that if you see the similarities with your own eyes that you may start to doubt the protection of circularly fulfilling biases with which you've surrounded yourself? Or are you just too lazy to bother? An open mind, it would seem, would be willing and glad to take on the challenge; unwillingness, on the other hand, would seem to be a sign of a mind wanting to go to sleep.



First, I've been speaking *particularly* about the creation epic in the first few chapters of Genesis. I would be the first to suggest that the book of Genesis is a conglomeration of a number of literary genres. To lump the entire book into a singular category of genre is simply a sign of ignorance.

Secondly, there is a difference--as I've been suggesting--between that which appears to have an "historical" form and that which is recorded with the intent of reporting the "actual-happened-ness" of events. The distinction is critically important, as it relies upon very modern, western notions of historicity that views "history" through the lens of a very particular and unique set of presuppositions about the nature of verifiability, the general structure and processes of the universe, etc.

My argument, to the contrary, is that the ancients did not necessarily share these biases and presuppositions. Did they imbue history with "truth" based on the verifiability of the "happened-ness" of the events (and if so, what were the criteria for that?)? Or was the "truth of history" gleaned from other sources? For example, from the witness and authority of previous generations?



This is your opinion. It is an opinion that is not shared by many who actually understand the full range of issues involved with interpretation, but hey, you're welcome to continue on in your willful ignorance.



And? Why would we expect there to be contradictions? Contradicting one's religious writings is not the best way to perpetuate the hegemony of religious and political power.



It would be hard for ancient Hebrew writings to contradict the "historical" nature of Genesis when the ones who would be contradicting it did not share the presuppositions that you do regarding historicity.



This is wholly irrelevant to the conversation, for there is absolutely no reason to assume that the content of "inspired" literature should correspond to a modern, western assumption about its historicity. Your logic, as circular as it is, is simply and hopelessly broken.



Lots of ancient writings did this, and they also traced their "patriarchs" (typically "kings" in other ANE lists). The necessary relationship between the Chronicles lists and the kings lists in Genesis is only relevant if one assumes that the person writing it holds to a strict conception of historicity like that of modern, western thinkers. As we have no reason to believe the authors of these documents held such ideas (and many reasons, which I've already outlined, to think otherwise), your logic, again, is simply flimsy.



Please review my previous post about the "mythological" usage of personages. There is still nothing in your argument that demands a modern, western interpretation of the "historicity" of the creation narrative.



I don't disagree that it's unique. But it's also derivative in some parts. I don't have a problem with that, and I certainly don't think it detracts from the inspiredness of the Scriptures.



Other writings do make that claim. And the proof for the "divine" authorship of those documents is precisely the same as for the Scriptures...there is none. This doesn't mean the Scriptures aren't inspired; however, there is simply no way to demonstrate that they are, and it is certainly no reason to justify applying extremely poor and ignorant hermeneutical methods to the interpretation of Scripture, simply to justify the pull of your own personal biases.

I read so,many books during my years of study. Research paper after research paper involving book after book. Just tabulating the footnotes was exhausting. Many many days spent reading and banging away on a keyboard.

So I find your comment insulting.

My point,still stands despite all your words. There is no Hebrew writings that contradict what I have said. The cultural understandings of other cultures were unique to those cultures. And as I have pointed out they cannot be used to interpret Genesis and it's historical nature specifically because God commanded the Hebrews to stay free of other cultures. They were to remain separate from other ideas and other philosophies. God spoke to them the truth. And as you or maybe Speedwell pointed out the Genesis account contradicted much of the other cultures beliefs of how the world came to be. God presented truth and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Much has been made of the Genesis creation account and the older accounts and how they supposedly influenced Genesis. However you have not offered any evidence of that influence. You suppose much.

Once again you leave God out of the equation and assume the bible is just like any other ancient book. You also,easily toss out any biblical argument I make with some nonsense about western historicity. Your claim is entirely unfounded. The Hebrews were very much involved in geneologies. They were important to them. The fact that Abraham Isaac and Jacob were historical figures and had their geneologies traces back to Adam flies,directly in the face of claiming Genesis is not historical. Again there is no logical reason to believe otherwise. You logic is completely flawed and assumptive.

You bias is astounding when it comes to the thought of mythologies. There is,no other way to read Paul and make the leap he was talking about a mythological being called Adam. Paul under the influence of inspiration stated that Adam was the first,man. Romans 4&5 are full of references to Abraham, Moses, David, Sarah and Adam. To make the leap that all the other figures were historical but not Adam does violence to the text that is beyond the pale. Unless of course you are willing to say,all the,persons mentioned are mythological beings. To say the Paul jumps from myth to historical and back again while being inspired by God and does so without any literary observation that he is doing so is the height of exegetical malpractice.

And there is nothing in your argument that demands we do,anything but read Genesis and accept that it says what means and means what it says. Western historical thought is un needed and a straw man argument. I was never taught not encouraged to look at scriptures with a western historical eye. The argument must be made on an exegetical and hermeneutical basis. Neither you nor the writers who deny the historical narrative of Genesis have been able to offer any real exegetical or hermeneutical basis for disbelieving Genesis. They can't even do it by following other Hebrew writings. No they have to to some far flung ancient literature written by ungodly wicked cultures while completely ignoring the remainder of scripture.

You correct about one thing though. There is no way to prove the inspiration of scripture. That does come by faith. And I choose to,place my faith in the claim of scripture that it was all written under inspiration. Its the height of hubris that we as men can read the scriptures and determine what is and is not inspired.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I read so,many books during my years of study. Research paper after research paper involving book after book. Just tabulating the footnotes was exhausting. Many many days spent reading and banging away on a keyboard.

So I find your comment insulting.

Lots of people read lots of books. The question is whether you have studied the relevant literature and research that is germane to the current discussion. Based on your seeming ignorance of the basic issues, I'm guessing that your curriculum did not include materials that would pertain to this topic.

There is no Hebrew writings that contradict what I have said.

No one has suggested that there is. You are the one who continues to try to slyly propose this as a meaningful criterion for this conversation. However, you haven't demonstrated anything particular to the Hebrew language that would suggest that it is the only source that is legitimate or necessary for a critical analysis of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.

The cultural understandings of other cultures were unique to those cultures.

Yes, obviously. Without distinctiveness, they would not be understood as distinct "cultures." However, if we analyze the breadth of ANE literature (including Hebrew literature), it is pretty obvious that despite distinctive cultural features, there are nonetheless very common similarities regarding worldview, anthropology, etc. Even the most cursory study of the relevant literature would reveal this, a study which you have obviously not undertaken and which your illogical reticence would seemingly prohibit you from engaging.

And as I have pointed out they cannot be used to interpret Genesis and it's historical nature specifically because God commanded the Hebrews to stay free of other cultures.

Despite the command, they did not "stay free" of other cultures, and we see influences in all aspects of their culture, religious literature, political structures, etc. Even the Scriptures themselves outline these influences!!! Therefore, if even the Scriptures themselves make note of the significance of the influence of "alien" nations and peoples, why would we then assume that this influence was not at least in some way realized in the literature that the Hebrews wrote?

And as you or maybe Speedwell pointed out the Genesis account contradicted much of the other cultures beliefs of how the world came to be.

My argument has been that the authors and editors of the Genesis creation narrative co-opted the features and structures of the common creation epics that were extant (number of days of creation, the creation "events" that took place on those days, etc), inserting their own theological distinctiveness. To use a rough analogy, it would be akin to what the Wesley brothers did when they took the melodies of popular "bar songs" and added lyrics with deep theological content.

This "contradiction" in the theological meaning of a myth doesn't suddenly imbue the mythological structure with (what modern, western thinkings would understand as) historicity. You are simply overcome by the power of your own biases, and have deluded yourself into believing that that are proper filters to impose upon the text.

God presented truth and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

No one has suggested otherwise. What Speedwell and I have said consistently is only that historicity is not the exclusive repository of "truth", even though our modern, western biases would compel us to believe so.

Much has been made of the Genesis creation account and the older accounts and how they supposedly influenced Genesis. However you have not offered any evidence of that influence. You suppose much.

I have suggested a few fairly obvious and well-accepted similarities already. You continue to ignore/dismiss them, but never actually dispute them other than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly about the legitimacy of your own biases. There are many, many other similarities. As I suggested earlier, if you are truly willing to explore the subject, I'm perfectly willing to tutor you, as well as suggest a good set of resources to study. I will not, however, waste my time with providing even deeper analysis when you have proven yourself either unwilling or incapable (or both) of meaningfully engaging the discussion.

Once again you leave God out of the equation

No, I don't. What I do, however, is suspend my assumptions about what God being "in the equation" would look like. You seem to know what it should look like, and shockingly enough, it looks precisely like what your biases would expect.

and assume the bible is just like any other ancient book.

No, this is yet another misrepresentation. I believe the Scriptures are unique, and while you can't possibly countenance this notion, I additional believe that the Scriptures are inspired. However, I also believe that they were written by actual people that had actual lives within the actual ancient world. As such, I believe that what they wrote would be in line with the assumptions and worldview that a ancient, near-eastern person would hold, not what a modern, western human thinks about the world. You, on the other hand, dehumanize the writers entirely by imposing your artificial hermeneutic upon the text.

You also,easily toss out any biblical argument I make with some nonsense about western historicity.

It appears as "nonsense" to you because you don't want to engage the subject in an intellectually honest way. You are a slave to your biases, and are unwilling or unable to deal with any form of thinking that would challenge the hegemony of your thought.

The Hebrews were very much involved in geneologies. They were important to them.

Indeed. They were quite important to a lot of ancient cultures. So what?

The fact that Abraham Isaac and Jacob were historical figures and had their geneologies traces back to Adam flies,directly in the face of claiming Genesis is not historical.

No, it doesn't. You arrive at this conclusion because of your assumption of the necessary historicity of all narrative elements within the Scriptures. What you continue to ignore, however, is that there is no reason to assume that the ancients had the same understanding of such a "necessity" (and again, given the analysis of this form within the broader collection of similar writings within ANE literature, we have some reasons to believe that they had a different view entirely).

You bias is astounding when it comes to the thought of mythologies. There is,no other way to read Paul and make the leap he was talking about a mythological being called Adam.

You are simply being obtuse. I'm not saying that Paul thought of Adam as a "mythological being". This category is a very modern, western one, a category which I certainly would not assume that Paul held as a part of his worldview. Your conflation of your own biases with the philosophical worldviews of the ancients continues to astound me.

Paul under the influence of inspiration stated that Adam was the first,man. Romans 4&5 are full of references to Abraham, Moses, David, Sarah and Adam.

This is only true if the writers have the same categories of historicity (and its necessity in genealogical information) in mind that you do. There is no reason to believe that they did (you certainly haven't substantiated that bias), and given what we know of ancient philosophy and worldviews by virtue of the critical analysis of the broad range of literature from the ancient world, there are good reasons to think that such strict categories were not at play.

To make the leap that all the other figures were historical but not Adam does violence to the text that is beyond the pale. Unless of course you are willing to say,all the,persons mentioned are mythological beings. To say the Paul jumps from myth to historical and back again while being inspired by God and does so without any literary observation that he is doing so is the height of exegetical malpractice.

Your usage of the phrase "exegetical malpractice" is humorous, given your admitted and wanton disregard for the basic categories of establishing the appropriate "context" for interpretation

Once again, I'm not suggesting that Paul is jumping between "myth" and "history". The division you are trying to force upon the author is not germane to the author's intention, nor to his probably worldview and philosophical understanding of the nature of "history".

And there is nothing in your argument that demands we do,anything but read Genesis and accept that it says what means and means what it says.

And you've done nothing to suggest that your understanding of "literality" has any bearing on the actual intentions of the authors of the creation epic.

Western historical thought is un needed and a straw man argument. I was never taught not encouraged to look at scriptures with a western historical eye.

This is precisely my point!!! It is because they assumptions and biases are so "natural" and "ingrained" in our fundamental worldview that they are such a hindrance to interpretation. If you were being instructed in an alien philosophy that kicks against the pricks of your "default" notion of the world in which you live, the nature of reality, etc., then the biases would be easy to identify and to suspend. However, when we are reared from the first opening of our eyes to "think" in particular ways as inheritors of the philosophy of the modern, western world in which we live, it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible, ultimately) to determine where our biases actually end.

The argument must be made on an exegetical and hermeneutical basis.

If you actually believe this, then why will you not give the appropriate regard to the actual context in which the Scriptures were written? The "why" is answered because this analysis of the actual context would challenge (and perhaps overthrow) your predetermined notions about what the Scriptures say.

Its the height of hubris that we as men can read the scriptures and determine what is and is not inspired.

And yet, this is precisely what you are doing. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[rjs330]

Post,removed by rjs

 

[Speedwell]

I'm beginning to wonder if you have really researched the biblical narrative by taking into,consideration all the biblical thought in reference to Genesis,or just read a bunch of stuff on the internet. Maybe you read a book or two like Walton who's thoughts are not supported by Hebrew literature.

Pretty snotty, rjs--that's not like you.

 

[rjs330]

Pretty snotty, rjs--that's not like you.

No it's not and I shouldn't have gone there. My humanity,got the best,of,me there. I was insulted by his statements to me. I took offense and,responded in kind to,how he spoke with,me. I shouldn't have done that.

 

[rjs330]

Lots of people read lots of books. The question is whether you have studied the relevant literature and research that is germane to the current discussion. Based on your seeming ignorance of the basic issues, I'm guessing that your curriculum did not include materials that would pertain to this topic.



No one has suggested that there is. You are the one who continues to try to slyly propose this as a meaningful criterion for this conversation. However, you haven't demonstrated anything particular to the Hebrew language that would suggest that it is the only source that is legitimate or necessary for a critical analysis of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.



Yes, obviously. Without distinctiveness, they would not be understood as distinct "cultures." However, if we analyze the breadth of ANE literature (including Hebrew literature), it is pretty obvious that despite distinctive cultural features, there are nonetheless very common similarities regarding worldview, anthropology, etc. Even the most cursory study of the relevant literature would reveal this, a study which you have obviously not undertaken and which your illogical reticence would seemingly prohibit you from engaging.



Despite the command, they did not "stay free" of other cultures, and we see influences in all aspects of their culture, religious literature, political structures, etc. Even the Scriptures themselves outline these influences!!! Therefore, if even the Scriptures themselves make note of the significance of the influence of "alien" nations and peoples, why would we then assume that this influence was not at least in some way realized in the literature that the Hebrews wrote?



My argument has been that the authors and editors of the Genesis creation narrative co-opted the features and structures of the common creation epics that were extant (number of days of creation, the creation "events" that took place on those days, etc), inserting their own theological distinctiveness. To use a rough analogy, it would be akin to what the Wesley brothers did when they took the melodies of popular "bar songs" and added lyrics with deep theological content.

This "contradiction" in the theological meaning of a myth doesn't suddenly imbue the mythological structure with (what modern, western thinkings would understand as) historicity. You are simply overcome by the power of your own biases, and have deluded yourself into believing that that are proper filters to impose upon the text.



No one has suggested otherwise. What Speedwell and I have said consistently is only that historicity is not the exclusive repository of "truth", even though our modern, western biases would compel us to believe so.



I have suggested a few fairly obvious and well-accepted similarities already. You continue to ignore/dismiss them, but never actually dispute them other than sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly about the legitimacy of your own biases. There are many, many other similarities. As I suggested earlier, if you are truly willing to explore the subject, I'm perfectly willing to tutor you, as well as suggest a good set of resources to study. I will not, however, waste my time with providing even deeper analysis when you have proven yourself either unwilling or incapable (or both) of meaningfully engaging the discussion.



No, I don't. What I do, however, is suspend my assumptions about what God being "in the equation" would look like. You seem to know what it should look like, and shockingly enough, it looks precisely like what your biases would expect.



No, this is yet another misrepresentation. I believe the Scriptures are unique, and while you can't possibly countenance this notion, I additional believe that the Scriptures are inspired. However, I also believe that they were written by actual people that had actual lives within the actual ancient world. As such, I believe that what they wrote would be in line with the assumptions and worldview that a ancient, near-eastern person would hold, not what a modern, western human thinks about the world. You, on the other hand, dehumanize the writers entirely by imposing your artificial hermeneutic upon the text.



It appears as "nonsense" to you because you don't want to engage the subject in an intellectually honest way. You are a slave to your biases, and are unwilling or unable to deal with any form of thinking that would challenge the hegemony of your thought.



Indeed. They were quite important to a lot of ancient cultures. So what?



No, it doesn't. You arrive at this conclusion because of your assumption of the necessary historicity of all narrative elements within the Scriptures. What you continue to ignore, however, is that there is no reason to assume that the ancients had the same understanding of such a "necessity" (and again, given the analysis of this form within the broader collection of similar writings within ANE literature, we have some reasons to believe that they had a different view entirely).



You are simply being obtuse. I'm not saying that Paul thought of Adam as a "mythological being". This category is a very modern, western one, a category which I certainly would not assume that Paul held as a part of his worldview. Your conflation of your own biases with the philosophical worldviews of the ancients continues to astound me.



This is only true if the writers have the same categories of historicity (and its necessity in genealogical information) in mind that you do. There is no reason to believe that they did (you certainly haven't substantiated that bias), and given what we know of ancient philosophy and worldviews by virtue of the critical analysis of the broad range of literature from the ancient world, there are good reasons to think that such strict categories were not at play.



Your usage of the phrase "exegetical malpractice" is humorous, given your admitted and wanton disregard for the basic categories of establishing the appropriate "context" for interpretation

Once again, I'm not suggesting that Paul is jumping between "myth" and "history". The division you are trying to force upon the author is not germane to the author's intention, nor to his probably worldview and philosophical understanding of the nature of "history".



And you've done nothing to suggest that your understanding of "literality" has any bearing on the actual intentions of the authors of the creation epic.



This is precisely my point!!! It is because they assumptions and biases are so "natural" and "ingrained" in our fundamental worldview that they are such a hindrance to interpretation. If you were being instructed in an alien philosophy that kicks against the pricks of your "default" notion of the world in which you live, the nature of reality, etc., then the biases would be easy to identify and to suspend. However, when we are reared from the first opening of our eyes to "think" in particular ways as inheritors of the philosophy of the modern, western world in which we live, it is incredibly difficult (if not impossible, ultimately) to determine where our biases actually end.



If you actually believe this, then why will you not give the appropriate regard to the actual context in which the Scriptures were written? The "why" is answered because this analysis of the actual context would challenge (and perhaps overthrow) your predetermined notions about what the Scriptures say.



And yet, this is precisely what you are doing. Pot, meet kettle.

Aib, we are getting under each other's skin. You wrote quite a bit of stuff that was rather insulting and snotty. I responded in kind. Not good. I apologize for doing that. I do that now and then when people start with the personal snarks and rather than just speak to the issues I swing back. I need to quit that. I'm not sure I can overcome that with you as your accusations are pretty harsh, but I will try.

I do see where we are worlds apart here. My difficulty is not really with you any way. It's with the books you've placed your faith in. Authors such as Walton do damage to the scriptures without any true exegetical and hermeneutical backing. They present a rather "new" thought while ignoring proper liturgical understanding and with little real Hebraic backing. His and others thoughts then place,men in charge of making the,decisions on the value of inspiration and the arbiter of what is and is not inspired. They then proclaim this grand thought and people buy into it.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I think historical creationism is the view I lean towards as I think it preserves both an accurate and straightforward reading of Genesis 1 while still being compatible with modern science.

I'm unsure about the extent of the flood, but idk if believing in a global flood would be inconsistent with the historical creationist view.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think historical creationism is the view I lean towards as I think it preserves both an accurate and straightforward reading of Genesis 1 while still being compatible with modern science.

I've always thought so.

I'm unsure about the extent of the flood, but idk if believing in a global flood would be inconsistent with the historical creationist view.

From the time the flood started till the Ark came to rest on Ararat was about a year. I would think if the flood was local it wouldn't have taken that long.

 

[pat34lee]

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are together. In them,
God created matter, but it was static, with
no energy yet.
In 1:3, when he said 'let there be light',
all energy was set in motion, and with
that energy, TIME.

 

[SkyWriting]

Historical Creationism is a view of Genesis 1 and 2 proposed by John Sailhamer that Genesis has been "bound" by modern English and it is important to understand the Creation account from the perspective of the early Hebrews.The theory has a mix of young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and the gap theory.Sailhamer states that the days of creation were indeed six literal 24 hour periods, but this Creation Week was the preparation of the Promised Land as the place of origin for mankind rather than the creation of the whole world.

The last sentence sounds correct.