Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

Don Perrett wrote:
>
> Sorry for being behind folks. After catching up on my reading, I felt it
> necessary to respond to this one. Thanks for the understanding.
>
> Don Perrett's responses to posting by George Murphy:......
>
> GM: Genesis 1 & 2, the different parts of the flood story, the 2 accounts
> of Saul's 1st acquaintance with David - all of these _look_ as if they're
> composed of material from different sources, but the concordist immediately
> starts to figure out ways to "harmonize" them as historical narratives - as
> Peter did when I commented on the flood story. Why is this the case if one
> seriously entertains the idea that everything doesn't have to be historical
> narrative?
>
> DP: So should we apply the same reasoning to the descriptions of Jesus'
> actions? There are more than just two of them. So should we also believe
> that this was just a tale or do we take it as an historical event? I would
> venture to say that all Christians believe it to be history. Why is the OT
> any different?

        I have not said that evidence of 2 (or more) sources in itself means that the
events that are described never happened. Saul & David met somehow, but the fact that
there are 2 accounts of how this happened means that one shouldn't try to maintain that
all the details in both of them are historically accurate. Similarly for multiple
accounts of what Jesus said & did in the gospels. There is no justification for
inferring from this that I don't think that any of these accounts have any historical
value. You don't have to make a choice between 0 and 100%.

> GM: Am I overstating the matter? Below I mention briefly the book of
> Jonah, &
> though this probably _isn't_ made up of material from different sources,
> there are good
> reasons to think that it isn't an historical account? Or will Peter & other
> concordists
> immediately start explaining that Nineveh really was as big as it says, that
> Jonah
> really said more than 5 words, that all the animals really did put on
> sackcloth, that
> the capital of Assyria really did undergo a mass conversion, &c. Or will
> they really
> consider the possibility that this isn't history. Surprise me.
>
> & this is why it was reasonable for me to ask Peter what of theological
> value
> would be lost if Job were fiction, & why it wasn't an answer for him to ask
> what would
> be lost if it were fact (i.e., history). The situations are not symmetrical
> because I
> certainly believe that major passages in the OT are historical narrative
> while the
> practice of concordists suggests that they aren't willing to consider that
> some aren't.
> But as I said, surprise me.
>
> DP: And Christ did not actually bring someone back from the dead or make a
> blind man see or rise from the grave. There is no such thing as
> resurrection because it is not scientifically proveable. I understand your
> point, but have YOU considered the possibility that all events in the bible
> are in fact actual events albeit overexagerrated. The intricate details may
> have been lost in time, translation and such, but why would anyone entertain
> the idea of the story just being made up? Christ used parables and I'm sure
> that there are some in the OT but unless someone can show grammatically or
> textually that any passage is a parable, I choose to take it as fact. And
> whether I understand the translation or interpretation is for me to deal
> with. The bible is not the shortcoming but my understanding of God's word.
> So yes there are some things that are not history but just because something
> does not seem plausible is a criterion that sets oneself up for spiritual
> failure.

        1st, there is no reason to jump from "the story of Jonah is not historical
narrative" to "the Jesus didn't rise from the dead." Again, it's not 0 or 100%.
        2d, please note that I said nothing about the events in Jonah being
scientifically proveable. That isn't the question.
        3d, translation and textual issues aren't significant problems for Jonah.
        4th - & most important - you're commiting the basic error I already mentioned.
You refuse to give serious attention to your own question, "Why would anyone entertain
the idea of the story just being made up?" I already gave some reasons. The fish is of
course another. (Yes, God could have created a miraculous fish & miraculously let Jonah
survive inside it. That isn't the point.) The point is that if you put together all
these strange phenomena & clear exaggerations, together with the fact that there is not
the slightest historical evidence for a mass conversion of the capital of the Assyrian
empire (and the "King of Nineveh," a title parallel to "the President of Washington"),
you have some very good reasons for thinking that the story was made up.
        But it wasn't _just_ made up. It is a story constructed for a theological
purpose. And it doesn't contain some real historical elements - e.g., Jonah & Nineveh.
 It isn't set in a galaxy far, far away. But it isn't historical narrative. It is, if
you wish, an historical novel (or short story), which is a quite different thing.
>
> GM: Finally, the question is not just about literary forms but about the
> writers'
> use of the state of the art knowledge of the world of their time. The
> writer of Gen.1
> wasn't just writing a story in which the sky was a dome - he thought it
> really was a
> dome.
>
> DP: And you don't think you're presuming too much? How can anyone, either
> way, state what someone thinks, let alone a writer from millenia ago? This
> of course goes both ways. I however am inclined to believe that while the
> writer's perspective is included within any writing, God should be able to
> insure that HIS message is still visibly apparent regardless of the writers
> intent. Not a large task considering he was able to create an entire
> universe.

        Yes, & God's purpose in Gen.1 is to speak about God as the creator of the
universe, not to tell us about the physical character of the heavens. At least if the
latter was the purpose, a remarkably poor job was done of it.
        
                                                Shalom,
                                                George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Dec 11 11:58:25 2003