|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A literal history for all or just one people? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3455 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jaderis,
I found your question Quit interesting. I would like to point out, however, that the chronologies in the Bible are not ‘Just’ for "establish descendency" of their King’s. Among other things, they are there to show accuracy in Biblical Prophecy. For example, you look at what the OT says about the Messiah’s lineage and then compare it to anyone claiming to be the Messiah. I would also like to point out that the Bible rarely puts things in chronological order. However, when it dos, it is clear that it is a chronological account. (For instance the Seven Days of Creation are defiantly in chronological order) One last thing, I would like to point out that even though these chronologies are in chronological order they would not carry every son of every father. (Example: If John had Sam and Sam has Tom; if Sam had no importance to the chronology {was unimportant as far as the history of his people, or did not accomplish anything of mention} then his name would be dropped and the chronology would simply read ‘John the father of Tom’)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
(Note: it seems that Jaderis made some incorrect assumptions about my position. There seems to be a common misconception here on EvC Forum that all serious Christians are young-earth creationist "biblical literalists". I am an evangelical Christian, but certainly NOT a young-earth creationist.)
quote:Good questions. Yes, this is possible. I have evangelical Christian friends who would take exactly the positions that you suggest. quote:It could certainly have been a local flood. (BTW, I am convinced that it was NOT a global flood, because of conflict with the geologic record.) quote:I believe this "seems clear" only to a modern, western mind. I don't believe this is how the original audience or the neighboring, contemporary cultures would have seen it. quote:I believe ALL of the OT accounts should be read in the context of the day! An understanding of the neighboring cultures can only help us to better understand the Bible properly (i.e. to understand what was originally meant by the authors). There are numerous books and articles that explore this. Below are a few from an evangelical Christian perspective: Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Baker, 2005) Richard James Fischer, Historical Genesis: from Adam to Abraham (University Press of America, 2008) K. A. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today (Wipf & Stock, 2004) K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2006) Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above: Part I: The Meaning of raqia' in Gen 1:6-8" Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-240. Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above: Part II: The Meaning of "The Water above the Firmament" in Gen 1:6-8" Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 47-63. Paul H. Seely, "The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10" Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997) 231-55. Paul H. Seely, "The Date of the Tower of Babel and Some Theological Implications" Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001) 15-38. Paul H. Seely, "Noah's Flood: Its Date, Extent, and Divine Accommodation" Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004) 291-311. Kenton L. Sparks, Ancient Texts For The Study Of The Hebrew Bible: A Guide To The Background Literature (Hendrickson, 2005) Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Baker, 2008) John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Baker, 2006) Edited by kbertsche, : Added Fischer book and Seely references.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
There seems to be a common misconception here on EvC Forum that all serious Christians are young-earth creationist "biblical literalists". I am an evangelical Christian, but certainly NOT a young-earth creationist.) Actually it is the conception that all bible literalists are young earth creationists. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Whatever it is, there seems to be an "excluded middle" on EvC Forum. Discussions are often polarized between naive, literalistic young-earth creationists who want to show that modern science is erroneous, and equally literalistic atheists who want to adopt an even more naive interpretation of the Bible to make IT look ridiculous. Few are active here who really want to discuss the Bible in a scholarly, intellectual fashion or to seriously discuss theological, archaeological, historical, cultural, literary, or grammatical details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Jaderis writes: 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? the chronologies are there indeed to establish kingly descendency, but not for the kings you might think, Let me just say that if you took the Messiah out of the OT, there would be no OT. Likewise, if the Messiah had not arrived, there would also be no New Testament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Peg writes:
And your point is...
Let me just say that if you took the Messiah out of the OT, there would be no OT.
Peg writes:
Likewise, if the Messiah had not been believed to have arrived, and if their hadn't been a council formed to canonize the myriad of different versions of the same "holy" books, there would also be no New Testament.
Bold added by me
There, fixed that one up for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Whatever it is, there seems to be an "excluded middle" on EvC Forum. Discussions are often polarized between naive, literalistic young-earth creationists who want to show that modern science is erroneous, and equally literalistic atheists who want to adopt an even more naive interpretation of the Bible to make IT look ridiculous. Few are active here who really want to discuss the Bible in a scholarly, intellectual fashion or to seriously discuss theological, archaeological, historical, cultural, literary, or grammatical details. True, but one thing I have seen in various forums here and other sites is that the middle is usually quiet. The wings, that is the radical right and left of a topic, do most of the talking sometimes with hilarious results. They have a tendency to speak without thinking. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5187 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
I have actually noticed a decent percentage of neutral views on this forum when it comes to Biblical discussion. Of course we are agreed on the fact that the vast majority are polar though.
True, but one thing I have seen in various forums here and other sites is that the middle is usually quiet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Mainly because no one will respond to the middle. The extremes get the attention. So the middle goes silent when the extremes take over. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024