A take on the creation story in Genesis
I've explained my approach to the Bible on more than one occasion in these forums, and countless other times in the previous version of CD. I've also engaged the Genesis creation stories multiple times. Now I've come across an analysis of the historical setting of the Genesis accounts that I like very much, and which I offer to these forums for evaluation and discussion.
I hope you'll read the following sample session from a study called "Listening to Scripture," produced by The Kerygma Program, then respond critically/analytically to its contents. No cheap shots, personal attacks, or one line dismissals, please. I ask you to engage the study with some measure of care. What do you think of its arguments? Do you find any common ground with the author's analysis of the Genesis texts?
In my view, this study communicates a clear, reasoned, and text- and context-based vision of the creation accounts. It is conversant with biblical history in a way many of our Scriptural takes are not. I await your view.
Comments
-
Bill I'm intrigued, do you have the original link as opposed to just the document link so I can check sources etc?
-
Thanks Bill, I need to spend more time with this. But the Jews divorcing their pagan wives during the return from Babylon was never about racial purity. It was about the Jews marrying foreign wives who did not convert to Judaism, as Ruth and Rahab did. The Jews acclimated to their wives pagan worship and needed to repent through divorcing them.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Bill I'm intrigued, do you have the original link as opposed to just the document link so I can check sources etc?I posted everything I have, David. The link came to me as a part of a sales email from Kerygma that offered sample chapters from five of its Bible study resources. Sorry.
-
I've started reading it and have to say they contradict themselves in two ways:
- They say it is clearly a hymn, that is only true if you look at it through the lens of today which goes directly against the opening of the article.
- There is hardly a consensus that Moses did not write these books. Therefore, the whole premise is wrong because they have the date of the book in the wrong time frame.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I've explained my approach to the Bible on more than one occasion in these forums, and countless other times in the previous version of CD. I've also engaged the Genesis creation stories multiple times. Now I've come across an analysis of the historical setting of the Genesis accounts that I like very much, and which I offer to these forums for evaluation and discussion.I hope you'll read the following sample session from a study called "Listening to Scripture," produced by The Kerygma Program, then respond critically/analytically to its contents. No cheap shots, personal attacks, or one line dismissals, please. I ask you to engage the study with some measure of care. What do you think of its arguments? Do you find any common ground with the author's analysis of the Genesis texts?
In my view, this study communicates a clear, reasoned, and text- and context-based vision of the creation accounts. It is conversant with biblical history in a way many of our Scriptural takes are not. I await your view.
Sorry, not enough information (background/contextual) to give an intelligent and proper evaluation of what you are requesting. In short, this limited material puts one too close to the tree, one can't see the forest. It looks interesting, but for now, I pass on evaluating this material, in light of your request. Thanks for the offer. CM
-
That piece comes across as engaging at first. Interesting, well-written. Captivating. Very soon it establishes premises without sources, makes claims without evidence, and heaps assumption upon assumption without warrant. Given the nature of the paper, its author and audience, I see red flags waving. Soon it even boxes in assertions based on the accumulation of weak or false assumptions and pointedly begins a series of biblical contradictions, which it then attempts to justify. It even ventures into calling the common-sense reading "spurious." Weak. Very weak.
Yet, in spite of that, it introduces some good thoughts, some legitimate thinking. I suppose that is the deception of the thing. Reminds me of my parents' counsel: "Don't dig through a garbage can looking for good food."
My response: Don't waste another minute on it.
- David raises important points above which I affirm but won't reiterate.
- CM adds a common sense approach to the article
- I find curious and spurious that a sector of scholars inevitably assumes that Biblical accounts of creation, cosmology, theology must have been derived from the surrounding cultures.The implication is that surrounding cultures had myths pre-dating Hebrew thought. Thus Hebrew thought is forcibly re-dated much later than makes sense to accommodate making certain cultural thought pre-date Hebrew thought--which it does not, since the Hebrew thought came from the Source, God, from the beginning. The reality is that what God said in the Bible is true. Corruptions of that truth spread to other cultures, thus we see some similarity of their stories emerging much later. None f this is new, it's old-hat, but there you have it yet again.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I've started reading it and have to say they contradict themselves in two ways:- They say it is clearly a hymn, that is only true if you look at it through the lens of today which goes directly against the opening of the article.
I'm not sure what you mean, David. "Hymn" is simply the word we use to describe what the study calls the passage's "stylized and stately language," which, the study contends, "is the language of litany, of prayer, and of congregational hymn." Prayer and hymns are certainly not words/concepts foreign to the Old Testament (e.g. Nehemiah 12.46; Psalm 40.3) Whereas, to the point of the article's opening, motel reservations are. I don't see the contradiction.
- There is hardly a consensus that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Therefore, the whole premise is wrong because they have the date of the book in the wrong time frame.
I've read lots of literature that makes the study's point about Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and have taught the same throughout my years in ministry. But it would have been more accurate and inclusive for the author to have referenced the existence of multiple points of view on the question, and the fact that he believes Moses was not its author.
In my view, your suggestion that "they have the date of the book in the wrong time frame" is no less exclusionary to other points of view than is the author's contention about "a consensus" as to Mosaic authorship. There are lots of Christians who believe differently than you do, people who would argue the author has the date of the book in the proper time frame.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
I've started reading it and have to say they contradict themselves in two ways:- They say it is clearly a hymn, that is only true if you look at it through the lens of today which goes directly against the opening of the article.
I'm not sure what you mean, David. "Hymn" is simply the word we use to describe what the study calls the passage's "stylized and stately language," which, the study contends, "is the language of litany, of prayer, and of congregational hymn." Prayer and hymns are certainly not words/concepts foreign to the Old Testament (e.g. Nehemiah 12.46; Psalm 40.3) Whereas, to the point of the article's opening, motel reservations are. I don't see the contradiction.
There have also been language studies, I will have to find them, done on this passage that go against his findings as well.
- There is hardly a consensus that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Therefore, the whole premise is wrong because they have the date of the book in the wrong time frame.
I've read lots of literature that makes the study's point about Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and have taught the same throughout my years in ministry. But it would have been more accurate and inclusive for the author to have referenced the existence of multiple points of view on the question, and the fact that he believes Moses was not its author.
In my view, your suggestion that "they have the date of the book in the wrong time frame" is no less exclusionary to other points of view than is the author's contention about "a consensus" as to Mosaic authorship. There are lots of Christians who believe differently than you do, people who would argue the author has the date of the book in the proper time frame.
My point is that he said the word consensus and that is very deceiving and borderline a lie. The majority opinion, which is much closer to a consensus, is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That majority opinion has been the majority opinion for thousands of years.
-
@GaoLu said:
Very soon it establishes premises without sources, makes claims without evidence, and heaps assumption upon assumption without warrant. Given the nature of the paper, its author and audience, I see red flags waving....
3. I find curious and spurious that a sector of scholars inevitably assumes that Biblical accounts of creation, cosmology, theology must have been derived from the surrounding cultures....The implication is that surrounding cultures had myths pre-dating Hebrew thought. Thus Hebrew thought is forcibly re-dated much later than makes sense to accommodate making certain cultural thought pre-date Hebrew thought--which it does not, since the Hebrew thought came from the Source, God, from the beginning. The reality is that what God said in the Bible is true. Corruptions of that truth spread to other cultures, thus we see some similarity of their stories emerging much later. None f this is new, it's old-hat, but there you have it yet again.Isn't it true that we ALL come to Scripture with assumptions and premises, some of which can't be proven by sources or evidence? For example, you assume the Babylonian creation myths came after the creation accounts in Genesis. The study assumes those accounts helped shape the Genesis accounts. There is probably a good deal of scholarship that supports your view. I know there is a good deal of scholarship that supports the study's view.
You have assumptions. I have assumption. The study's author has assumptions. In my view, the differences in our assumptions don't merit our thinking of each other's conclusions as "garbage" we must "dig through" to find "good food."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Very soon it establishes premises without sources, makes claims without evidence, and heaps assumption upon assumption without warrant. Given the nature of the paper, its author and audience, I see red flags waving....
3. I find curious and spurious that a sector of scholars inevitably assumes that Biblical accounts of creation, cosmology, theology must have been derived from the surrounding cultures....The implication is that surrounding cultures had myths pre-dating Hebrew thought. Thus Hebrew thought is forcibly re-dated much later than makes sense to accommodate making certain cultural thought pre-date Hebrew thought--which it does not, since the Hebrew thought came from the Source, God, from the beginning. The reality is that what God said in the Bible is true. Corruptions of that truth spread to other cultures, thus we see some similarity of their stories emerging much later. None f this is new, it's old-hat, but there you have it yet again.Isn't it true that we ALL come to Scripture with assumptions and premises, some of which can't be proven by sources or evidence? For example, you assume the Babylonian creation myths came after the creation accounts in Genesis. The study assumes those accounts helped shape the Genesis accounts. There is probably a good deal of scholarship that supports your view. I know there is a good deal of scholarship that supports the study's view.
You have assumptions. I have assumption. The study's author has assumptions. In my view, the differences in our assumptions don't merit our thinking of each other's conclusions as "garbage" we must "dig through" to find "good food."
One thing I believe is true, is that God energizes the prophets, and his power and message filters through them. So that the message incorporates human emotions and knowledge. So it is possible that some of the myths and other human trappings become part of the means through which God communicates. Only "sterilized" and arranged by divine inspiration.
Notice the humanness in Jesus' words. The same is true of the prophets who communicate eternity through earthen vessels.
-
@dct112685 said:
There have also been language studies, I will have to find them, done on this passage that go against his findings as well.In my view, the issue of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch will not be settled by your language studies or mine, David. There's pretty much a permanent dividing line between those who do and don't accept Moses as the author. You're convinced beyond doubt of your view, I bet. I am convinced beyond doubt of my view.... And never the twain shall meet.
My point is that he said the word consensus and that is very deceiving and borderline a lie. The majority opinion, which is much closer to a consensus, is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That majority opinion has been the majority opinion for thousands of years.
First you claimed Michael Flynn was guilty of unintentional lying. Now you claim the author of this Bible study is guilty of "borderline" lying. Who knew there were so many varieties?!
My parents said if you say it as if it's true when you know it's not true, it's a lie. -
@Bill_Coley said:
@dct112685 said:
There have also been language studies, I will have to find them, done on this passage that go against his findings as well.In my view, the issue of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch will not be settled by your language studies or mine, David. There's pretty much a permanent dividing line between those who do and don't accept Moses as the author. You're convinced beyond doubt of your view, I bet. I am convinced beyond doubt of my view.... And never the twain shall meet.
My point is that he said the word consensus and that is very deceiving and borderline a lie. The majority opinion, which is much closer to a consensus, is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. That majority opinion has been the majority opinion for thousands of years.
First you claimed Michael Flynn was guilty of unintentional lying. Now you claim the author of this Bible study is guilty of "borderline" lying. Who knew there were so many varieties?!
The problem is there is historical evidence for a Mosaic authorship. Your view takes a lot of twisting.
