In a message dated Thu, 14 Mar 2002 9:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net> writes:
> if Gen 1 was supposed to be historical fiction,
> why didn't it clearly state this?
First, "historical fiction" is your phrase, not mine.
Second, one could ask the same question about your favorite position. A "prophetic narrative" is not the most natural way to read Gen. 1, so if you think that is what it is, why doesn't it state that?
Third, should we expect every passage in the Bible to come with an annotation of what literary style it is? Though we might wish otherwise, God has apparently chosen not to clarify most such cases (and there are many in addition to Gen. 1 where one might wish for that). I think many human doctrines about the Bible end up being "the way I would have written the Bible if I were God," rather than "letting the Bible be the Bible" as you suggested a while back.
Perhaps one reason why there is no annotation telling us how to read Gen. 1 is that, to the original audience that was more used to hearing truth via figurative language, the important theological meaning was clear. Especially (as Paul Seely has mentioned) since it was set in a familiar *cosmology* but with a radical change in the *theology*. It is only with the modern mindset of fallen humans, a mindset that demands scientific perfection of nonscientific texts, that such questions even arise.
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 14:26:14 EST