At 08:54 PM 10/29/1999 -0500, John_R_Zimmer@rush.edu wrote:
>My comment:
>
>The early chapters of Genesis - like the legends of Arthur - come
>out of prehistory. We know that because the Sumerians also have a tale
>that is almost identical to the story of Noah's flood. So the term
>"historicity" must be a metaphor when applied to a comparison of the early
>chapters of Genesis and the archaeological or evolutionary record.
Coming out of prehistory does not have to mean 'false' or metaphorical or
unhistorical. The aborigines have legends about certain islands when the
islands were conncected to the mainland. This has to be from 12,000 years
ago or so because that was the last time that the sea levels were low
enough for the island to be a peninsula.
>
>Even the "historicity" of Glenn's 'match' between the details
>of Noah's story and the details of the Mediterranean infill must be
>regarded as metaphorical. The Mediterranean infill was an event
>in prehistory.
I would most strenuously protest this characterization. If the predictions
I made are ultimately not verified, then my views are wrong, false and
otherwise (redundantly) erroneous--they are not metaphorical and are not
meant to live beyond their falsification. By making things metaphorical you
can believe them long after they have been proven false, which is very good
for some views, like the YECs.
>
>To me, the big question is: What event in prehistory should a
>particular Genesis story associated with? Each 'match' reveals a
>different scenario.
>
>For example, Mallowan's claim that the story of Noah's ark pertains to a
local
>catastrophic flood early in Sumerian civilization is a scenario.
>In his scenario, one is inspired to imagine that Noah and Zuisudra are
>the same person. If that were the case, then Noah would be both a
>descendant of Adam and an elite in the pre-Dynasitic Sumerian cilivization.
>Wow! Now that's something.
Yes, imagination is a wonderful self-deceptive thing. We should all engage
in one hour a day of self-deception. It is wonderful for the soul. Yes, it
is something, exactly what we might discuss.
The fact that his scenario can in no wise match the physics, the geology
nor the account in Genesis should bother us a bit. If it isn't true then
imagining it to be true for the 'truths' it contains is simply an exercise
in futility. Why can't we simply imagine that the YECs are correct and all
be YECs? What a glorious thing--we can solve the Creation/Evolution
controversy by imagination alone. Wow! What is to stop us from doing that
if we don't care about the details? They certainly don't care about the
details and you, like them, don't seem to care either.
>
>Mallowan's scenario 'matches' the story of Noah's flood with sediments
>from a local flood that happened at the start of the Dynastic, the social
>change to the Dynastic, a break in the list of kings, and the existence
>of a Sumerian flood myth (also an ark story). (Actually, Dick Fischer has
>gone through this and ther is probably more.)
And once again, imagination can ignore the fact that the various sediments
are not from the same time, do not physically connected and thus can not
possibly be from the same event. Yes, imagination is a wonderful thing.
ANYTHING CAN BE IMAGINED AND THEREFORE ANYTHING CAN BE TRUE. WHOOPEE.
>
>At the same time, Mallowan would regard many of the details of the
>flood (for example, naming the mountain, the 40 days, the multitude of
>animals on the ark, the depth of the waters etc) as 'not corresponding'
>to the actual event but as details that were changed (due to various
>dynamics) by the passage of the narrative.
So, the details are all false--i.e. they have been changed to other details
that really weren't there but are full of metaphorical truths
none-the-less. I am sure that imagination plays a big role here.
>
>Does that mean that the details are "false" and that God is lying
>by letting the story to be written as such? I don't think so.
Of course God isn't lying. God can tell us any line of bull he chooses to
tell us. And we are gullible enough to believe it! He would make Clinton
proud.
On
>the practical level, it means that we cannot reconstruct the event
>(of the flood) solely from the Genesis text. To me, this inability
>has a lesson:
>
>Like the story of King Arthur, this legend reveals something
>real - but at the same time - lets us know that whatever did happen
>exactly, the story is for us to imaginatively re-experience with all
>the wonder that comes with legends. It tells of both triumph and horror.
Pass the reefer, man, it will help my imagination.
>
>
>On the level of theology and morals the question this scenario
>raises is: What does God want us to know by giving us a legend
>of this event?
He wants us to know anything that we want Him to tell us, anything at all.
We don't have to pay attention to those nasty ole facts, we can imagine
them away and experience the wonderful nirvana of the truths that our own
minds imagine to be there. And the most wonderful thing of all is that we
can imagine God's motives when we are unable to discern the motives from
our fellow human beings.
>
>Perhaps Seely has it right in claiming that the theology of Noah's flood
>needs to be appreciated in the light of the Sumerian / Babylonian myth.
>The comparison is stunning. Maybe God, by allowing the story
>to be a legend, is telling us to follow the direction Paul is pointing
>towards.
>
>Thus, looking at the story of Noah's flood from the 'logic of legends'
>1. involves a scenario, 2. allows one to 'match' the story with an
>event in prehistory that 3. deepens our appreciation of the story
>of Noah's flood. Such a perspective does not claim that "God is telling
>lies" simply because the story of the flood has legendary details.
>Rather, God is telling us to use our brains.
To do what??? Imagine falsehoods are true, so that we can be inspired? It
seems to me that if something is false, our brains should tell us that. If
our brains don't tell us that, then something is wrong with our brains.
>
>
>For me, this is what concordism - as art - can give: Here is a 'match' that
>deepens our appreciation of both the Genesis text (by inspiring us to
>compare it to Sumerian myth) and our appreciation of a local flood that
>just happened to devastate the world's first civilization. The flood
>was as surprising as the sinking of the Titanic and, unfortunately, just
>about the whole civilized world was on board.
Well, the problem with this is that Sumer wasn't the first civilization.
And they weren't the first peoples to invent writing. It may have
originated in Egypt
http://customnews.cnn.com/cnews/pna.show_story?p_art_id=3251635&p_section_na
me=Sci-Tech&p_art_type=374522&p_subcat=Archeology+%26+Paleontology&
p_category=Sciences
The Sumerians were rather late on the scene. Abu Hureyra in Syria was the
first civilization and it was about 5000 years earlier. Egypt had a long
pre-historic civilization. But then if we imagine hard enough we can come
to believe that Sumer was really the first.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution