Types of Literature

[Willtor]

Hey,

I'm posting this thread in the YEC area because I'm not interested in debating this issue, at this point. But I think that your responses will better help us non-YEC's to tailor our general responses to you. I know a bunch of TE's lurk in this area, so I'm pretty sure the results will be beneficial.

Certainly, we all agree that Genesis is Scriptural (and, consequently, useful for teaching, etc.). And we also agree that there are a variety of forms of literature that appear in the Bible (historical narrative, apocalypse, poetry, parable, etc.). But we seem to disagree with the form of literature of Genesis, itself. It would be simple enough to convince a non-YEC of the possibility that Genesis is an historical narrative by showing him or her an example of historical narrative written in the ancient Near East, as contemporary to the presumed date of authorship of Genesis.

My question to you is: What would it take for a non-YEC to convince a YEC of the possibility that Genesis is a non-historical narrative?

 

[ChetSinger]

Hey,

I'm posting this thread in the YEC area because I'm not interested in debating this issue, at this point. But I think that your responses will better help us non-YEC's to tailor our general responses to you. I know a bunch of TE's lurk in this area, so I'm pretty sure the results will be beneficial.

Certainly, we all agree that Genesis is Scriptural (and, consequently, useful for teaching, etc.). And we also agree that there are a variety of forms of literature that appear in the Bible (historical narrative, apocalypse, poetry, parable, etc.). But we seem to disagree with the form of literature of Genesis, itself. It would be simple enough to convince a non-YEC of the possibility that Genesis is an historical narrative by showing him or her an example of historical narrative written in the ancient Near East, as contemporary to the presumed date of authorship of Genesis.

My question to you is: What would it take for a non-YEC to convince a YEC of the possibility that Genesis is a non-historical narrative?

I'm probably a lost cause. From what I read, Jesus referred to Genesis in an everyday kind of way that indicated to me he considered it history.

Regarding writing style, I once compared the flood story in Genesis to the one in the Gilgamesh epic. I think they both spring from the same event in history. But the Genesis account is a rather dry, matter-of-fact read, while the Gilgamesh epic seems positively dramatic. To me, Genesis reads like a history book, while Gilgamesh reads like a play.

 

[muaxiong]

My question to you is: What would it take for a non-YEC to convince a YEC of the possibility that Genesis is a non-historical narrative?

My answer would be to first answer this question: Why would it not be considered a historical narrative or rather why consider it anything else other than the fact that it contradicts the evolutionary process?

 

[Willtor]

My answer would be to first answer this question: Why would it not be considered a historical narrative or rather why consider it anything else other than the fact that it contradicts the evolutionary process?

Well, I guess this is the point of the question. I didn't bring up evolution, but if evolution disappeared tomorrow, I would still interpret Genesis the same way I do, now. Obviously, I think I have good reason to interpret it the way I do. As I said in the OP, I think one would give most TE's pause if one were to present another example of an historical indicative document of ancient Near East origin.

What sorts of things would make you reconsider your interpretation?

 

[mark kennedy]

First of all I would say that the literary style is poetic prose describing in Genesis historical 'accounts'. Genesis was not written in the analytic, matter of fact language of modern historians so it is often passed off as devotional literature. From the creation to the entrance of the children of Israel into Eqypt Genesis is a written record of redemptive history. Instead of comparing Genesis to other writtings of history I would suggest comparing Genesis 1 to other historical accounts in Genesis itself. Were the accounts of Abraham, Issac and Jacob real world history or stories?

I think evolution has done a bang up job distracting people from the fact that the historical narrative starts with Genesis 1, it doesn't end there. If the opening narrative is thought to be hyperbole and mythic prose then it casts a shadow over the whole thing. The question isn't just whether or not Genesis 1 can be taken as history but if anything in Scripture can be regarded as historical fact.

First you would have to find something in Genesis itself considered historical. Then determine what criteria is used in determining that is indeed historically accurate. Finally I would say applying this to Genesis 1 would demonstrate it fits the same bill as other historical narratives. I've tried this several times with TEs and it's really hard to ever nail anything down.

For me personally once I was convinced of the ressurection and deity of Christ special creation was no problem. I think the core convictions of the Gospel are foundational and literary comparisons although helpfull are secondary at best. Let's not forget that the central focus of our faith is the person and work of Christ in our lives through the Holy Spirit. With that as a firm foundation the Bible as history will happen naturally.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[muaxiong]

What sorts of things would make you reconsider your interpretation?

It all has to do with the logic of truth and its claims that is whether or not truth can be simplistically stated (and not whether it can be simplistically understood) which I will be more than willing to discuss in a different thread in the open forum.

 

[charityagape]

Hey,

I'm posting this thread in the YEC area because I'm not interested in debating this issue, at this point. But I think that your responses will better help us non-YEC's to tailor our general responses to you. I know a bunch of TE's lurk in this area, so I'm pretty sure the results will be beneficial.

Certainly, we all agree that Genesis is Scriptural (and, consequently, useful for teaching, etc.). And we also agree that there are a variety of forms of literature that appear in the Bible (historical narrative, apocalypse, poetry, parable, etc.). But we seem to disagree with the form of literature of Genesis, itself. It would be simple enough to convince a non-YEC of the possibility that Genesis is an historical narrative by showing him or her an example of historical narrative written in the ancient Near East, as contemporary to the presumed date of authorship of Genesis.

My question to you is: What would it take for a non-YEC to convince a YEC of the possibility that Genesis is a non-historical narrative?

What would it take?A personal sea change in my belief that ANY of the bible is true. ****edit***** true meaning historically accurate.