I agree whole-heartedly here. One would not want to get history from the
Psalms. And I would even grant that Genesis 1 might fall under the guise of
poetry. But Genesis 2-11 sounds and reads little different from Genesis
12-50. It is those chapters that I am most interested in.
>The first chapters of Genesis have been understood
>non-literally since the time of Augustine (mabye before) and many modern
>evangelical Old Testament scholars also have concluded on the basis of the
>original Hebrew text that the original intent of the passage was not to
>present a literal chronological account of God's creative activity.
I would not agree with you concerning Genesis 2-11. Augustine, City of God XV
Chapter 9 clearly takes the account of Cain and his city building literally.
Augustine states:
"Wherefore no one who considerately weighs facts will doubt that Cain might
have built a city, and that a large one, whe it is observed how prolonged were
the lives of men, unless perhaps some sceptic take exception to this very
length of years which our authors ascribe to the antediluvians and deny that
this is credible." Great Books, vol. 18, p.404
In Chapter 27 of Book XV, Augustine makes a defence of the size of the ark as
sufficient to hold all the animals. This clearly does not sound like he took
it as anything less than historical. He states of the flood account,
"Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no
purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any
allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and
that there were no such facts at all..." p. 420 Ibid.
My understanding of the issue is that creation was not much of an issue until
the Renaissance.
My point in quoting Augustine is not to say that we should view these accounts
as historical because he viewed them as historical. It is merely to show that
your contention that the " first chapters of Genesis have been understood
non-literally since the time of Augustine (mabye before)" is not correct.
They viewed it as historical.
>(Again
>I would highly recommend Henri Blocher's book In the Beginning.) I am
>simply arguing that we must allow scripture to be what it is. I'm sure
>scripture would read alot different if we were responsible for writing it.
>It is a continual challenge to approach scripture without our own
>preconceptions and expectations of what and how God is speaking to us.
>This is one of the reasons why fellowship in the body of Christ is so
>critical.
I quite agree that we must let Scripture be what it is. But since Augustine
had no data except that of the Hebrew Scriptures, and he read Genesis 2-11 as
historical then why should we in the last part of this millenium suddenly find
them to be non-historical literature? I would contend that it is because we
have been so singularly unsuccessful at finding a scenario which fits Genesis
with known history and known scientific data. And thus to avoid the
conclusion that our documents are unreliable, we go the allegorical only
approach.
Another person announced on Talk Origins the other day that he is now an
ex-Christian. In private discussions with this guy, he told me that he became
convinced that the Bible simply wasn't true. Why would he conclude this?
Because the events described were not actual events! Having nearly become an
atheist myself over exactly the same type of issue, I feel rather strongly
that Christianity MUST come up with a scenario which matches Scriptural events
with actual history and which is verifiable. That is what I hope I am
offering with my views. Most people are not very happy with the view Scripture
can be True, but present a false history. By the way, did you find any
*scientific* errors in that post I put on T.O.?
I will try to get Blocher's book. I am interested in what he says.
glenn