I am probably a little confused on what I have written where.=20
=20
One of the things I discuss in the first of my new series is the
problem =
God
has of inspiring an account that must be true throughout history. Long
story short, I believe that if one has a choice between two =
interpretations
of the Bible, one makes it utterly observationally false, and the other,
which might not be the first choice in the matter but which makes the
translation fit with observation, I would choose the
interpretation/translation which makes the Bible true. Some purists =
will be
aghast at such an approach, but I would ask, why on earth would we
INTENTIONALLY chose to make the Scripture false as Grandpa's teeth? If =
there
is a way to read it that makes it historically accurate or =
scientifically
accurate, why not do it? Frankly, last time I was here, I was amazed =
that
one guy actually told me that he wanted me to be wrong to, as I =
understood
it, avoid having a historical Bible. I think of my favorite Tipler
quotation.
=20
Case in point about choosing a good or false interpretation, And God =
said,
Earth bring forth living creatures after their kind... Most interpret =
this
to mean that the animals must give rise to animals identical to them. =
But
animals isn't the subject of the sentence God spoke, Earth is. Thus the
Earth is doing the bringing forth. That interpretation makes the Bible =
fit
with evolutoin. After it has become clear that evolution is the way
God =
put
life here, why anyone would interpret it to deny evolution and make the
Bible false is beyond me. Science says the earth brought forth life; the
Bible says the same thing. We have a choice, take the good choice for =
pete's
sake. Only the mentally impaired chose answers which make his side
look =
bad.
=20
The entire detail is in the book, the email I might not have pointed out
that the word translated cattle is miqneh 1/10 of the time is
translated =
as
possessions/substance meaning wealth. One can't have wealth without a =
tent
and a place to put that wealth. It is also called flocks or herds. =
Thus,
following the principle above of taking the good choice rather than the
self-inflicted wound choice, I would suggest that maybe the passage is
talking about possessions, rather than cattle. That is a valid way of
interpreting it. If linguistics alone were the judge, then maybe it =
should
be cattle. But if science is to have any say in the affair, then tents =
and
modern herding weren't invented in the same millennia.
=20
When Phil, yesterday said " I think this need to understand Genesis in =
light
of science is *the* theological issue facing the modern church, and it =
is no
less important than the Reformation or other movements of prior
ages. " =
And
then he divorces science and scientific data from the interpretation
of =
the
passage, he is making it utterly impossible to understand Genesis in the
light of science. Science is OBSERVATIONAL. But then, when people =
support
ideas like the Mesopotamian flood which forces us to conjour up =
non-existent
hurricanes in the Mesopotamian basin to explain our scripture, then
why =
are
we any different than the YECs who conjour up faster rates of =
radioactive
decay, faster evolution than even an evolutionist believes, or who =
conjours
up rapid continental drift in order to save their interpretation? =
Conjouring
should be for magicians, not for people trying to do historical =
sciences.
=20
But saying the whole thing is ahistorical leaves us with no way to =
actually
TEST the theology which we are supposed to swallow in spite of the =
obvious
ahistoricity of the account. Only people lacking business savy buy a =
car
without test driving it.
=20
Secondly, I suspect that the Neanderthals who followed those goats =
thought
those herds of goats were theirs (ownership) and not that of another =
tribe
nearby. The goats don't see it that way, but then neither do the goats =
of
today who are owned by farmer Jones. Thus, this verse could easily be =
said
of the Neanderthals who lived solely off of goatmeat.
=20
>>> DAvid wrote:=20
So we might ask, what would the ancient Hebrew readers of Genesis have
thought of when they heard the phrase "the chief of those who live in =
tents
and raise livestock (cattle)?" It seems plausible that they would
think =
of
a particular chieftan of a particular tribal group of people -- not of =
the
first paleolithic hunter-gatherers to take shelter in animal skin =
structures
in a cave. (We might also consider the words translated "live" and
"tents," which taken together in the ANE context probably denote a more
established settlement than a tented hunter-gatherer shelter.) <<<
=20
I am utterly convinced that Christianity MUST take a new road in =
relation to
the Genesis issue. The two or three main approaches simply have
failed. =
They
all ignore data, they all create nothing new or novel, they all have =
ZERO
explanatory power. As I have thought about this, the only way out is
to =
have
an utterly CONCORDISTIC EVOLUTIONARY interpretation of the Bible. =
Something
that actually makes it real. That is what I have done with Gen 1:11,
21 =
and
24 by noting that waters and earth are the active bringers of life. =
That is
what I have done by moving Adam way back in history. And that is what
I =
am
doing with this second look at Genesis 4:22. Phil noted my struggle. The
struggle is that if the Bible isn't true then it is NOT true. Yeah yeah
everyone will tell me of literary devices etc. If all the Bible is is
a =
good
philosophy, then it is no better than the various philosophies which I
learned of in Grad school each of which was deep sixed by the next guy =
on
the reading list.
=20
I think the biggest trap we have gotten into is thinking that the =
original
understanding of the Hebrews is important. Who cares what they thought?
MAYBE THEY WERE WRONG! What we should care about is What was God
trying =
to
inspire. If God was saying observational nonsense but telling us great
theology, how would we know that? Maybe the observationally flawed =
Mormonism
is the real great theology and we are utterly wrong.
=20
The only way to tell what God was trying to inspire is to check it =
against
observation. If someone says that God was trying to communicate his =
love to
us by telling us observational nonsense, then how do I know that God's =
love
is the true message? I can't check God independently to see if he is =
love,
or a Klingon war god. The only thing I can check is observational
data. =
That
is why it is vital that Christians actually embrace historical reality
rather than turn everything into a game of how to avoid accountability =
to
observation.
=20
=20
>>>> David wrote:
Similarly, Jubal is the "chief" of those who "play stringed
instruments =
and
pipes." "Stringed instruments" is the Hebrew "kinnowr," which literally
means "harp" and is the term used for a specific type of harp. Again, =
this
requires not just a Neanderthal flute (setting aside the disputes among
archeologists and anthropologists about whether the artifacts in =
question
are musical instruments), but also a "harp." So the ANE reader may have
thought of the chief of a particular guild of musicians who played in
ensembles that included flutes and harps. <<<
=20
GRM:You make it sound like this is a particular instrument when you
say =
it
was a specific type of harp. That simply isn't so. THis is from the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
"This instrument had many forms, which may be seen on the Assyrian
and=20
Egyptian monuments; but the kind used by David was probably like the =
modern=20
Arabic, rubaba, having only one or two strings, played not with a =
plectrum=20
(Ant., VII, xii, 3) but by the hand (compare 1 Sam 16:23, etc., which
do =
not
exclude a quill). Whatever the nature of the instrument was, David =
acquired
such=20
proficiency in playing it that his fame as a musician soon spread =
throughout
the=20
countryside (1 Sam 16:18). With the passing of time he becomes the =
Hebrew=20
Orpheus, in whose music birds and mountains joined (compare Koran, =
chapter
21=20
). "
Here they admit they don't know what it was like. Assumptions, like
the =
one
you made above, that this is a specific instrument are just that,
assumptions,which should be challenged. If we don't challenge our
assumptions, we will simply remain stuck in this mire of solutions which
don't work. And once again, what the Middle eastern readers thought
is =
not
entirely relevant to what God was possibly meaning (assuming we think =
God
has any capabilities to actually inspire a human to write what God
wants =
him
to write). If God has no capability to actually inspire a human to write
something, then I would have to agree that it does matter what the =
Hebrews
thought. But if God can inspire a story, or a message, then it matters =
what
God thought, not what the writer thought.
>>>> DAve wrote:
The text concerning Tubal-Cain is interesting because he is not the =
"chief"
('ab) but a variant identifies him as one who "instructed" (latash) =
those
who worked in brass and iron.
=20
Admitting I'm no OT scholar, it seems to me that a plausible reading
is =
that
this passage identifies the development of organized human culture,
including these chieftans of agriculture, the arts, and industry,
after =
the
fall and before the flood. It's interesting that at the end of this
chapter, the text notes that "at that time men began to call upon the =
name
of the LORD." <<<
=20
And that is the way this passage has been intepreted. But when I see =
that
the phrase 'brass and iron' in it's only other occurrence in the OT is a
euphemism for corruption (maybe it is because mixing the two metals =
corrupts
the product), then I have to look at the tubal-cain verse
differently. =20
=20
What is amazing to me is that everyone over the years has griped at me =
for
ignoring literary devices, and now when I point one out, no one wants to
accept it. :-) It is a wee bit amusing.
=20
>>> Here we have a pause in the broader narrative before the Adam-to-
>>> Noah
geneology moves us into the flood story. After the fall, God in His =
grace
allows humanity to realize some of its pre-fall potential, and some
fellowship between God and man is restored. It seems to me that the =
level
of organization this suggests is greater than that of a hunter-gatherer
culture. <<<
=20
>>> Depends upon how big the ark is and how many animals were taken =
aboard.
There is archaeological evidence for ocean voyages nearly 1 million =
years
ago. We don't know what kind of boats, but even hunter-gatherers can =
make
seaworthy rafts.
=20
I'm not entirely convinced, however, that the level of organization in =
ch. 4
requires that Adam be neolithic. When we fast-forward to chapter 5 =
verse 5,
we see that man continues to go his own way, inviting another act of
judgment. It seems to me that the pre-flood society of verse 4 could =
have
been very small and very local, such that it and its technological =
knowledge
could have been wiped out by the flood, without leaving any =
archeological
traces. <<<
=20
Prior to the last 2 weeks, that was always my answer for metal work =
before
the flood. It was the only option I had. But, living according to my =
own
dictum, if I have a choice between a moderately passable answer and a =
really
good answer, I will always choose the really good answer. Why would I go
back to that approach for metalwork when I have internal LITERARY =
evidence
that 'brass and iron" don't really mean LITERAL brass and iron. =20
=20
At the risk of a pun, the IRONY of me arguing for a literary device
and =
most
others saying no no, it's literally brass and iron, is quite delectable.
=20
=20
=20
>> But like I said, that's just one thought. Your ideas are
>> interesting =
too,
as are Dick's and as are the less-concordist views that see Jabal, =
Jubal,
and Tubal-Cain more as figures.<<<
=20
Thank you. I try to bring some novelty to the table. Christian
theology =
is
so conservative (even the so called progressive branches) that new
ideas =
are
simply rare as hen's teeth.=20
=20
If we are going to have progess, it means there will have to be =
something
NEW, not the same old hash which we suddenly declare is progressing =
quite
nicely.
glenn
They're Here: The Pathway Papers
Foundation, Fall, and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
=20
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 27 01:25:11 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 27 2006 - 01:25:11 EDT