Thanks for the reference. I must say though, George's reply was a little
more enlightening. I do not expect there to be a simple this way or that in
anything. In fact it is the very idea of complexity which makes many things,
including the bible difficult to interpret and even understand. This is why
no one, except the holier than though, can say that they have the answers.
This of course leads to the concept of continuing the search and
discussions. To say that it's already been done and people have already
found the answers does not serve anyone. Relationships with God are
personal. So even when fact is present, how one takes it is important. Even
myths are based on some observable fact. It is not the concept that is myth
but rather the expression and interpretation of events that becomes myth.
Which then brings one to search for the cause or root of the myth. Again,
thanks for the response.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: Shuan Rose [mailto:shuanr@boo.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:05 AM
To: george murphy; Don Perrett
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: A matter of trust?(Or why YEC persists)
Dear Don,
I think a problem here is that would be concordists tend to be far too
quick to dismiss biblical scholars and theologians who spend a lifetime
studying Near East literature and religion. It is they who are the experts
in the field of Old Testament scholarship., just as Glenn and Keith are
experts in geology and George and Burgey inter alia are experts in physics.
The consensus among Old Testament experts is that mythological elements
were incorporated into the creation accounts in Genesis and elsewhere.This
consensus is at least as well established as is continental drift in geology
and quantum mechanics in physics, so it is more than "mere
supposition".There is an enormous literature on this, going back over a
hundred years.You could start with the book I referenced, and then check the
author's references.A solid online resource is
http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/RTOT.HTM
There is an extensive bibliography on creation.
I might add that your request for a percentage of fact/myth in the
Pentateuch sounds like the requests of YECS , "Just show me an animal
evolving, a jackalope or a half reptile, half bird, and THEN I'll believe in
evolution".Unfortunately, it aint so simple. Do the research, then form your
opinion.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of george murphy
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:31 PM
To: Don Perrett
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: Re: A matter of trust?(Or why YEC persists)
Don Perrett wrote:
While I agree that not all of the bible can be interpreted as
science, I somehow doubt that anyone can deny that some books of the bible
are distinctly poetic/mythological and others are factual, or even
prophetic. Prophecy requires science to be understood before the event.
After the fact it is not required but still useful. Factual passages and
books, like most of the first five books, require science. Some disagree.
Are the numbers of people within a tribe just poetic? Or are they actual
math? Are the items forbidden to eat just mythology or are they actual eats?
I think if a person with logic looks deep into the first five books they
will find that the author/authors were generally using facts, which they
knew at the time. This of course means that some will not apply today and
some may. Its up to us to figure out which ones.Anyone wishing to respond,
please give a percentage of fact vs. myth within the first five books. To do
any less with a general "Its not science" comment would be unjust. Everyone
says that the other doesn't listen. I'M LISTENING. Its up to those who
disagree to answer the question, DISTINCTLY.
Your breakdown into "fact" and "myth" is far too simplistic.
The Pentateuch contains -
a) Theological texts & theology in the form of historical
accounts & stories.
b) Some historical & geographical data.
c) Stories about Israel's ancestors - some of which contain
historical data.
d) Other versions of the same material in a). (I.e., there are
duplicates, told from different
standpoints &/or transmitted by different channels.)
e) A considerable amount of legal material.
f) Liturgical material.
g) Stories to explain place names, traditions, &c.
h) "Broken myth" (note the qualification).
and other types. This list is not exhaustive.
I have not included
i) unqualified myth, because there is little if any of this, &
j) science, because while contemporary scientific views of the
world are utilized (as in the
cosmography of Gen.1), there is no material whose purpose is
the teaching of science.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 14:27:47 EDT