>>I don't ascribe history to poetry. But I don't ascribe poetry to
historically
sounding passages either. The genealogies in early Chronicles are not
poetical and so I don't see any reason to say the ones in Genesis are
poetry either.>>
Oops! Are ALL writings to be arbitrarily classified as either
"historical" or "poetry?" I think we would, on reflection, agree not.
I'm not sure the classifications of writings are terribly precise! There
are so many shades between them.
The issue is, of course, just what ARE the writings in Genesis 1-11 and,
having come to some kind of agreement on a classification (if one is even
possible), then is it the intent of the writer (a human) and the inspirer
(God) to tell us anything precise and accurate about history? Clearly,
that goal is nowhere near the original intent of the writing -- or was
it? Could it have been a secondary goal?
You think "yes," and I am skeptical of such an assertion.
But, you may say, even if the communication of accurate history was not
even a secondary goal of the writer (human) and the inspirer (God),
surely such details that are part of the story which are historical
details (in our concept of history) ought to be correct? And if correct,
potentially verifiable?
And my answer to that is simply -- "perhaps." But why?
When Jesus spoke of the "good Samaritan," or the "boy who ran away and
then returned," both these stories were potentially verifiable at the
time. Perhaps they were real people -- perhaps not. I really see
absolutely NO difference in either story either way? Do you?
The preponderance of scholarship places the writing of Genesis 1-11 back
less than 3000 years ago -- the rest of Genesis some time earlier. Yes, I
know there are some "conservative scholars" who date it much earlier, but
my point is not that it is either one or the other but that reputable
Christians disagree on all this. My own take is that the people who date
it earlier have the worse of the argument -- but no matter. Both "sides"
seem to agree, more or less, on the primary messages of the text -- which
are theological, not historical. God didit. It was marvelous. It is
almost impossible to describe. God is one. God is, in spite of being one,
somehow plural. Great tensions in our understanding. That is the way it
must be -- at least on this side of heaven!
>>Consider the situation where a person from China,
raised with the belief that there is no God... They start reading the
Bible, They look at Genesis and say, "Gee, it doesn't look like this is
what happened. Geology, paleontology etc don't seem to support the idea
that there was a creator". To this, we reply with the typical view that
we
should not look at early Genesis for history but we should look at it for
its theological content. God is revealing non-historical truths to us
and
we need to pay attention.
While all this is going on, one afternoon, our Chinese friend is visited
by
Mormons who give them a new book with a slightly different revelation.
Our
Chinese friend reads the Book of Mormon and says "Gee, it doesn't look
like
this is what happened. There were no chariots in pre-Columbian North
America, no Jews, no horses and the battles which are described have left
no evidence." The Mormon then responds to him, 'We should not look at
the
Book of Mormon for history but we should look at it for its theological
content. God is revealing non-historical truths to us and we need to pay
attention."
How is this man to decide the truth? The Evangelical says, "The Spirit
will
guide you into all truth". The Mormon says, "The Spirit will guide you
into all truth"
And this to me is the very serious problem we fall into if we reject
historicity. Upon what basis do we reject the revelation to Joseph
Smith?
That he lived in the early 1800s? That he believes in polygamy? (The
Bible
allowed it). We certainly can't reject his book because it is
non-historical and at the same time admit that the Bible is to be
accepted
because it tells us all these non-historical truths!!!
Should we consider the revelation of Joseph Smith because he teaches us
theological truths? (and there are truths about humanity and man's
relation
with god to be found in the Book of Mormon.>>
I quoted a lot from you above because you raise a good point.
Your base assumption is, I think, that a person who accepts the Mormon
scriptures is not a Christian. I would not agree with this assumption. I
would also not accept the assumption that a person who accepts ICR's YEC
thesis is not a Christian. Yes, IMHO the Mormons have a serious error in
theology insofar as their second book is concerned. But they, as we,
point to Jesus Christ as the focal person of worship and adoration. In
every church, I suppose, there are people who have given lip assent to
the claims of Christ but have never entered into a relationship with Him.
Perhaps there are more in my church, PCUSA, than yours. Perhaps more
still in the Mormaons. Maybe not. That's not our job (IMHO).
You said, "The Evangelical says, "The Spirit will
guide you into all truth". The Mormon says, "The Spirit will guide you
into all truth"
I would disagree with the "all truth" phrase. I do believe the Spirit
will guide one into a new relationship with God, through Jesus Christ.
Even so, we will never (on this side of heaven) have full knowledge -- or
even error-free knowledge. What we can have is a "right relationship"
with our Father. And that's all that really counts, after all!
I wrote: "Your standard for scripture sets you up as the judge of
scripture. Scarey, I'd say." You wrote back:
>>No more scary than anybody who says they believe they know what the
Bible
means, and I believe you also believe you know what the Bible means(it is
a
book of non-historical theological truths). Why shouldn't I be scared of
that, Brother?>>
I'm sorry. I can't unpack that statement. It does not make sense to me.
I wrote: "Life is uncertain. So is the study of scripture. That's the
process...
I am comfortable with that. You, it seems, are not. Why? Is not the
really important item the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ? And none
of us are going to know Him the same -- we all see God/Jesus through the
eyes of our own training and experiences. I don't see this as bad -- I
don't really see any reasonable alternatives."
You responded:
>>I am uncomfortable with it because of what I would call the Mormon
problem.
If all we see are our internal psychological states, then Mormonism is as
good as Christianity and then why not Buddhism?>>
I think I understand your POV. Ultimately, of course, all any of us ever
"see" is our own "internal psychological states." I fear you may be
looking for a certainty that simply does not exist, except within one or
more specific "God Encounters." I've had such -- not many. How about you?
Some people, in my experience, never have one, and seem to get along just
fine. I don't know that I would have done so, but I'll never know of
course!
Thanks for the dialog. I respect you and your writings a lot. They may
even represent an actual course of events -- if so I have no problem with
them; if not so, I still have no problem with the issues involved.
But you already knew that...
BTW, I just got a book from the ASA to review -- THE JESUS MYTH by Arthur
Drews (from Prometheus Books of course). He wrote it in 1910 (I had
thought when I requested it that it was new). Do you (or anyone here)
know anything about it?
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]