Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 6:29 PM
32 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, WookieeB (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,343 Year: 15,379/19,786 Month: 2,102/3,058 Week: 476/404 Day: 80/63 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 100 (37790)
04-24-2003 4:30 AM


Indeed.

The meaning of the "making man from the dust of the earth" story is that humans are part of the created order, made from the same stuff as the rest of the universe.

Not that we are literally made of soil. We are not.


  
Karl
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 100 (39494)
05-09-2003 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by manwhonu2little
05-08-2003 5:16 PM


Re: Genesis & Time
Yes, but it's an awful lot of twisting to go to when it's easier to say:

(a) two accounts from different sources;
(b) mythological rather than historical in character;

which is the obvious conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-08-2003 5:16 PM manwhonu2little has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 10:24 AM Karl has responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 100 (39517)
05-09-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by manwhonu2little
05-09-2003 10:24 AM


Re: Genesis & Time
The twisting to which I refer is recourse to questionable relatavisitc effects in order to harmonise two accounts written long before relativity was formulated. I cannot help think that a composite account that can only be true if you understand a hypothetical physical scenario that may or may not be scientifically possible has got to be bad hermeneutics. A to my mind more sensible hermeneutic leads inevitably to a conclusion of contradiction, which in turn leads to a resolution of non-literality.

As has been hinted elsewhere, the JEPD hypothesis is a simplification. I doubt strongly whether these four documents ever existed. I think they represent oral traditions that were gradually brought together over the oral transmission period.

It's all very well to say that the non-Mosaic authorship of Genesis has not been proven, but it has not been demonstrated that such authorship should be the null hypothesis here. There is no reason to suppose Moses was the author, save a long standing tradition. Christian doctrine stands upon scripture, tradition and reason, and I think that reason and scripture stand against Mosaic authorship - the former for the reasons discussed here and elsewhere, and scripture because the subject is not mentioned, and the books are not written in a manner that implies Moses was the author - Moses is always referred to in the third person, for exampe, as opposed to the way Ezekiel or Jeremiah refer to themselves in the books that bear their names.

With only tradition out of the three supporting it, I am not inclined towards defending a Mosaic authorship of the books of the Pentateuch.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 10:24 AM manwhonu2little has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 4:33 PM Karl has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 100 (39905)
05-13-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by peanutbean6111
05-12-2003 5:32 PM


Re: GENISIS 1 AND 2 ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY: HERE IS WHY
Nice try.

Now lets do a really in depth study of Genesis 2 shall we?

Verse 7 - God creates the man.
Verse 18 - God decides the man needs a helper, and He will make one.
Verse 19 - God makes the beasts and birds. Why? Because He's decided, after making the man (Verse 18) that the man needs a companion.
Verse 20 - None of these non-human creations are up to snuff.
Verse 22 - God makes a woman.
Verse 23 - 'Yes! This is what I wanted!' says the Man.

The whole structure of this is different to the first creation story. The first paints God as the supreme architect, who knows exactly what He is doing. For three days He prepares the universe - 1. light, 2. the sky and the waters, 3. the earth. For another three He fills and organises it - 1(4). sun, moon and stars, 2(5). birds and sea creatures, 3(6). land animals and man. It's all right first time. So on the seventh day God can sit back and rest on His laurels.

In the second story it is not so. God makes it up as He goes along. First a garden, then a man. Then God thinks "Hmmm - how about some companions" so he makes the animals. This doesn't work, so He makes a woman. In each of these second creative acts, the motivation is His, or the Man's, appraisal of the situation thus far.

Any attempt to call this a focussing in on Day 6 is totally missing the very different ideas about God that are behind the two stories.

As a final point, note clearly the word used for God consistently throughout the first accound, and the word used for God throughout the second. They are different. These stories are from two originally independent religious traditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by peanutbean6111, posted 05-12-2003 5:32 PM peanutbean6111 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019