In the thread
The timeline of the Bible kbertsche (in
Message 40 ) presents an interesting viewpoint on the purpose of the chronologies in the Old Testament.
quote:
You assume that the Bible intends to present a "timeline" with its chronologies. But I suspect that this is an anachronistic understanding of the text, assuming that it is similar to modern historical accounts. It needs to be read in the context of the day, e.g. in context of the Sumerian King List. The purpose of the Sumerian King List was apparently to establish descendency, thereby legitimacy for the throne. Likewise, the purpose of the biblical chronologies seems to be to establish descendency, not to present a literal timeline.
My question to kbertsche is:
If you believe that the chronologies are only there to "establish descendency" and would therefore only be relevant to the Hebrews in order to provide legitimacy for their kings, then why would any of the OT be relevant to or even be describing any actual human history besides that of the Hebrews?
Why do you (presumably and if not you, then any biblical literalists, creationists, etc can feel free to answer me) then assume that any of the other events in the Old Testament (Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel) have any correlation to any of the other civilizations that we know existed?
For example, could not Adam and Eve be the first humans that the Hebrew God appointed to be his "chosen people" and the descriptions of their life in Eden and banishment be just so stories for the human condition?
Could not Noah's flood be a local flood?
If not, why do you take the chronologies to be only relevant to establish a bloodline when it seems clear from the text that it shows a direct timeline from the first man ever to have existed up to knowable historical events (and from there until now)?
Also, why should the chronologies be read "in the context of the day," but not the rest of it?
Why are you willing to compare the chronologies to the Sumerian kings list, but comparing the mythology in the OT to those of other peoples that surrounded them and deducing that it is, indeed, mythology is a big no-no?
Mods: feel free to change the title or give me suggestions. I was having trouble thinking of a good one.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
™ Version 4.2