Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

Bill -

The only point I was making, in response to a question of Dick's, was that
stories which are not accounts of historical events can convey theological
truth. Every pastor who uses such stories as sermon illustrations knows
this.

I agree that Christianity is tied to the real history of the world because
it's about what God does in the real world. But that does not mean that all
the texts in the Bible that could be read as historical narratives are. In
particular, Gen.1-11 simply isn't history in anything like the modern sense,
even though I think it makes some use of real historical events and,
perhaps, people.

The traditions of the Exodus are so pervasive in the OT that I find it very
hard to believe that they have no historical core. However, the picture of
~ 2.5 x 10^6
escaping from Egypt is somewhat exaggerated. I'm not sure if that's what
you mean by "the Passover" or not.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@verizon.net>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
interpretation

> George:
>
> Perhaps I am missing the point of the thread. I haven't been following it
> carefully.
>
> My comment was intended to be a general comment about the relationship
> between historicity and theology. I think, as I'm sure everyone would
> agree, that Christianity, indeed also Judaism, would be different
> religions and about different gods were there not a significant and
> essential historical elements.
>
> I just wonder what happens as we begin to shred Christianity of its
> historical foundation, leaving it only with stories and metaphors pointing
> to an invisible "reality," a transcendent god, but not an immmanent one,
> one without heat and breath, GDA (general divine action), but no SDA
> (special divine action), all done to protect Him from historicity and
> Lessing's Ditch.
>
> So, for example,
> Does it matter whether the Passover took place or not, or can we do
> without it to make the theological point?
>
> Perhaps a more subtle question is whether it matters if Jews and
> Christians believe it took place or not, independent of whether it
> actually took place or not. (Just as we can ask a similar question
> regarding scientific realism.)
>
> I think the difference is enormous in both cases. I do think it matters
> whether we speak of "actual" historical events or Felix the Cat or Hamlet.
>
> bill
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, George Murphy wrote:
>
>> 1st, Mt.24:38 is hardly "quoting Atrahasis." Both mention eating &
>> drinking but Mt. saying nothing about "feasting" & Atrahasis nothing
>> about marriage. Jesus' reference is simply to people going about their
>> daily affairs, not about special feasts. & of course daily affairs
>> includes eating & drinking. Jesus wouldn't have needed any special
>> information to infer that people were doing that.
>>
>> 2d, was this supposed to be a response to what I said about historical
>> accuracy & theological use? If so, what?
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dick Fischer
>> To: 'George Murphy'
>> Cc: ASA
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:45 PM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
>> interpretation
>>
>>
>> Hi George:
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is one thing I find interesting. When Jesus spoke about the flood,
>> he said: "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating
>> and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah
>> entered into the ark ." (Mt. 24:38). There is nothing about eating and
>> drinking in Genesis, he was quoting Atrahasis:
>>
>>
>>
>> "he invited his people
>> ... to a feast
>> ... his family was brought on board.
>> While one was eating and another was drinking,
>> he went in and out; he could not sit, could not kneel,
>> for his heart was broken, he was retching gall."
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM
>> To: Dick Fischer; 'Dehler, Bernie'
>> Cc: ASA
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
>> interpretation
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick -
>>
>>
>>
>> On the last paragraph: 1st, of course "fabrication" is a heavily loaded
>> term. Having noted that, the answer to the question "would that not also
>> call into question the theological lessons derived therefrom?" is "No."
>> Again I'll cite Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan. There is no reason
>> to think that the events Jesus describes actually happened (i.e., they
>> may have been a "fabrication" in your terminology) - & more importantly,
>> it doesn't make the slightest difference to the theological use Jesus
>> makes of the story whether they really happened or not. Other examples
>> could, of course, be given.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Dick Fischer
>>
>> To: 'Dehler, Bernie'
>>
>> Cc: ASA
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:44 PM
>>
>> Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical
>> interpretation
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Bernie:
>>
>>
>>
>> You raise a valid point, one that I have asked myself for many years.
>> The broad question is whether or not there was a flood, and if there was,
>> when was it and what was the extent? I think that question can be
>> answered readily. The question you raise is the accuracy of the account.
>> Did the Bible writer get all his facts straight? If there are mistakes
>> in the narrative, are there enough to discount or disbelieve the entire
>> narrative in Genesis altogether?
>>
>>
>>
>> Compared to the parallel flood accounts the one in Genesis is the odd
>> one out on the subject of duration. Parallel accounts describe a week
>> long voyage while Noah's trip in Genesis takes a year. But whatever the
>> case, mistake or not, scribal error or not, that is no reason to jump to
>> some other position that can't be defended by anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rainy seasons are annual events in Iraq occurring in the spring when
>> the snow melts on the mountains in the north and surges down the rivers
>> on to the flat plain that is southern Mesopotamia. If there were two
>> back to back flood episodes, and Noah chose to remain in the boat to ride
>> out two rainy seasons, that could take a year and might explain the long
>> voyage in Genesis versus the short voyage in the parallel accounts. I'm
>> only throwing that out as one possible explanation.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, say my guess is wrong. In court trials where witnesses give their
>> accounts of a crime they have seen rarely are all testimonies exactly the
>> same. Perspectives differ, perceptions aren't the same, memories vary.
>> Yet the judge or jury must decide guilt or innocence on the totality of
>> evidence presented. Conflicting testimonies are normal and to be
>> expected.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree the primary focus should be on the theological lessons based
>> upon the historical narrative. If the historical account was a
>> fabrication, however, would that not also call into question the
>> theological lessons derived therefrom?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick Fischer, GPA president
>>
>> Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>> "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
>>
>> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 8 20:54:26 2009