AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Evangelicals claim to read the Bible 'literally', but not 'literalistically'.
But is there any meaningful difference between these two approaches? I think that there is a very large difference as a matter of fact.
The word ‘literal’ refers to the Protestant preference for a way of reading the texts of Scripture on their own terms. The 'literal' - or better 'plain' - reading is an attempt to read the text in terms of its original context and genre and so on, and by recognising metaphor, symbolism and other literary devices in the text. For the literal or plain reader, a text may describe historical events in a variety of ways and still be validly historical. It is not interested in pursuing the kind of allegorical readings that were popular in the Middle Ages.
Put simply: a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor.
It is also the case that 'plain' readers of Scripture could see how the texts of the Old Testament meant far more than their authors knew. For example, the writer of Psalm 2 has an immediate literal sense in mind relating to the Davidic king. But from the New Testament perspective we can see how the 'full sense' (in theological circles the sensus plenior) of the Psalm includes Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the prophecy.
On the hand, a 'literalistic' reader reads without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact.
Put simply: a literalistic reading of a metaphor might read it as not a metaphor at all.
The literalistic reader claims of course to be reading the text in the most authentic way. As you can see, it results in readings that very often have little to do with the text that is there at all.
@Andrew - is your question serious? Have I missed something that is to say that all of a sudden people in the bible didn't exist?
Michael, in reference to your comment at #5, the kind of literature I'm talking about is the book of Genesis in the Bible. I'm interested in your response to the following question:
Does a literal reading of Genesis 5:29-32 interpret Noah as being a real, historical man who lived on the earth?
Your response of, "it might do", is, in my opinion, a non-response.
However, rest assured that I'm not a control freak and it's entirely up to you whether you want to answer my question.
the Macquarie dictionary definitions of 'literal' include:
(prosaic means having the form of prose rather than poetry)
So these vernacular definitions of 'literal' seem to exclude a reading that accounts for metaphor, genre and perhaps even context.
In other words, using a 'plain' definition a 'literal' reading sees everything matter-of-fact as if it is prose.
Indeed, I think this is a reason critics of Sydney Anglicanism are so confused about what we are on about. Some of our jargon doesn't help the cause.
Jeremy makes a good point -- it is a bit ironic that we try and redefine "literal" to say "We don't mean 'literal' (in a popular sense)"! Only Sydney Anglicanism could use a non-literal meaning of 'literal' to mean 'not literal'... :P
Nevertheless, I guess the device is useful to describe a difference between more fundamentalist readings, but it does seem a bit self-serving. 'We read it in the correct sense, yay for us...', as though avoiding fundamentalism and basic errors of comprehension deserves a gold star. This is unfortunate as it masks the big problems with how we read the bible.
For example, Michael recently posted this very helpful blog entry: "Roy Ciampa - Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians" Having heard approx 489389343 sermons and studies on 1 Cor over the years, I was pleasantly surprised to see the amount of useful background information there that does wonders for understanding the context of the passage -- property rights around people; Paul's egalitarianism relative to the practices of the time; understandings of homosexuality, etc. I was also kind of shocked to realize I've pretty much never heard that material covered in a sermon. Is it laziness on the part of those preaching? Not really, it's by design...
@ Jeremy, yes: I think I said in my piece that I prefere 'plain' to 'literal'. The history of 'literal' is that is the term used as the opposite of 'spiritual' - that is, the 'spiritualising' senses of allegorical interpetation. The use of the word 'literal' to mean 'literalISTIC' is a recent corruption.
@Andrew: it isn't a non-answer. It's a refusal to be drawn into a rather petty either-or. And a refusal to avoid the actual work of listening to the text itself. That isn't the end point of hermeneutics mind you; there's still more to do to put the text in the context of the whole Bible, too.
Or does 'contextual' have baggage I am unaware of?
Either Genesis 5:29-32 is indicating that Noah was a real person like you or I, or it's indicating that he wasn't a real person like you or I. Or are there other options that I've overlooked on account of my lack of sophistication?
I don't take you seriously, Michael.
Genesis may be indicating the Noah was a real person, but that not be the main point of the text.
Job is perhaps a better example. I think a good case can be made for the claim that the plain reading of the book of Job is that he is a literary figure rather than a 'historical' one. Even if he was a historical figure, his historical existence is not really the point of the story. Saying 'There was a man named Job' is neither a claim to his existence (it could hardly be a claim for his non-existence) nor is not such a claim.
I don't have the theological training that others on this topic have (frankly struggling to understand 1/2 of what is being said!) but I have had experiences with people who didn't take the Bible as Gospel and it wasn't pretty.
Unfortunately our sinful nature causes us to many things that we rationise as "Godly", including liberally translating the Bible.
How far do you go though? Are you saying it is ok to say that Job never existed but the situation did just in another name?
The example I eluded to above in 16 was where a person said that the Devil doesn't exist because it takes away all accountability because we can say "the Devil made me do it". What do we do with this?
The person saying that about the Devil is making a theological mistake about accountability as much as a textual mistake. It seems to me that the Scriptural testimony over a number of books in different contexts about Satan is that he does exist.
This article and this thread absolutely encapsulates why I left the Anglican church twelve years ago. One weekend, I realised that I couldn't listen to another academic sermon painted in different shades of grey. Alot of Anglican ministers preach with no power because half of you don't even believe what the Bible says.
Michael, I couldn't be bothered pitching any more questions to you. Your answers are equivocating and ridiculous.
On the positive side, this thread has exposed the foundational problem with the Sydney Anglican church (which has to do with the interpretation of the Bible) and I can guarantee you guys that until you fix this problem, your church is going nowhere. Certainly I won't join the Anglican church again until you guys fix this problem.
If yes, how does that work? How can we take one part of the Bible as literal but other parts as liberal?
The Anglican church left me hanging out to dry but I was right and the Anglican church was and is WRONG. It's time to fix the problem so that you're not in this same position ANOTHER twenty years from now.
Saying that genre is relevant to understanding the meaning of a passage is not 'liberal'.
eg Psalms is poetry. Therefore when the Pslamist says he will 'take refuge under the Lord's wings' he doesn't literally mean that God is a bird.
This gets a little more controversial is when we look at the genre of prophecy (eg Revelation). How do we read the numbers in Revelation, for example?
I have never done a comprehensive survey, but the predominate view I've heard from Moore College lecturers is to read genesis 1 as poetry.
However, my guess is that the vast majority of Sydney Anglican ministers would answer 'yes' to all your questions.
Is that fair Michael?
@Ron and Andrew: I never said Noah wasn't a historical figure. What I am trying to do is to ask us to think about the nature of the text so we can read it better. That is: more 'literally' in the strict sense!
@Andrew - do you always shout louder when you don't like what you are hearing? I don't like have guns pointed at my head.
Michael, this is meaningless.
Not believing what the Bible says is a REAL problem. In fact its probably up there as one of humanity's biggest problems, as being part of the whole blinding package of being in Sin.
But, I think a point could be raised that by focussing our attention on "quarrellesome" issues rather than the issues that the passages are asking us to concentrate on, is a pretty direct road to not believing the Bible.
Plus we wont be able to answer the questions of was such and such exactly as it "appears" unless we first ask "What is this passage saying in the context of the particular book." I think Revelation, Job, Genesis 1, Matthew vs Luke's genealogy, the process of baptism in the new testament, are just some of the texts that draw a number of conclusions by differing theologians and historians (particularly on the wedge/quarrelsome issues) depending on how you understand context.
If you get "stuck" on the wrong issues, you are doing asogesis, not exegesis, and therefore blind to understanding the whole passage. So it may be more helpful to invite your friends who are struggling with Christian truths to see the context more clearly, rather than to make their minds up early on issues that may not even be relevant to following/understanding the Bible.
What this means is that any insistence that Job, Adam, Noah, the good Samaritan, or any other character mentioned in the Bible must have been a real historical person without reference to how the text would have originally been understood is guilty of misreading and misrepresenting the Bible. They may have been "real people" but the simple reference to them is not sufficient to prove that. For example, if Job was a real person, the book of Job cannot be considered a "literal" record of his life. After all, who speaks entirely in poetic form?
Thus I agree with Michael's point: a true reading must account for the literary form. So perhaps we should opt for a "literary reading" as the best description!
Sadly I think it is meaningless. Taunting someone as not believing the bible because you can’t comprehend their interpretation of it is meaningless: you are attacking something that may not exist, a shallow straw-man of your own construction. Slow down, breathe a little, and try and think about what Michael is actually saying.
(I’m getting “Sydney Anglican Heretics†vibes in this thread. Oh what fun.)
I understand that some of the books are written in the form of Psalms, Song of Songs and Proverbs. They are Poetry. Then you have the parables that Jesus talked in when he was with his disciples.
Here is my but though - if it not one of those types of books/parables, then they are to be taken with the legitimacy of a legal document. Yes, I know the first 5 books where passed down in story form through the generations but that doesn't diminish the fact that those people existed.
This to me is the back up or consolidating factor to the Bible. You can not have an authentic document without saying those people existed.
Yes, they text needs to be read for what is being said but you cannot give it full weight without saying (in some books only) that the person existed.
Does this make any sense?
I am only saved through Christs death on the cross.
I think I'll back off now - all I was trying to do was explain something which is obviously not getting through. My struggle has always been to put what I say into words on paper.
the statement that Moore lecturers think Genesis is poetry (as opposed to describing in literary form events that actually took place) is not correct.
In the back of my mind I was thinking of people who read Revelation legalistically, but I never for a minute thought you were saying that.
If I understand you correctly you are really asking: "How should we read history in the old testament particularly in Genesis and Exodus?"
Is that a fair reading of your comment?
As to your question - yes and I'll leave it at that. If we met face to face I think I would stand a little better but would still need a translator! :-)
As I see it, the key claim being made is that there is not - in general - a hidden layer of metaphor between the passage and the reader; biblical writings can be taken on their own terms, not "decoded" via some extra-biblical analogical method.
But using "literal" to mean the above is non-obvious to the typical hearer. You need "hidden" knowledge to understand the claim of no hidden knowledge!
EG: One of my old army mates might have said:
If you do that again, I'll punch you in the face, and I mean that literally!
'Literally' would have been viewed as a 'big' word. ;-)
So do Moore lecturers think that every living creature alive on the planet today is actually descended from eight humans and a menagerie that emerged from a big weatherproof casket somewhere between 2500 and 2300 BC (the precise date depending on whether you use the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Masoretes for your calculations)?
And do these Moore lecturers hold that every language spoken on earth has its origin in a divinely instigated tower collapse and diaspora out of "Babel" some time after the very historical mid-third millennium BC Deluge?
1) existed before the historical Deluge, were represented on the ark, then made their way to Australia (and only Australia) after the waters had subsided?
OR
2) evolved subsequent to the historical Deluge (i.e. within the last 4500 years) from certain mammalian "kinds" that had made their way to Australia?
and
While not wanting to assume all MTC lectures share one mind.
Mark Baddeley deals with animal death before the fall in this section of his series.
I think it implicitly answers your questions.
Thank you for the Baddeley link. I read through the article - and it's an instructive read - but I don't see how it pertains to my questions, implicitly or otherwise.
If God actually blotted out all animal life in an historical, global Deluge, then all species that exist today must be descended from the menagerie carried on the Ark. So why did all marsupials end up only in Australia if they are descended from individual breeding pairs that started out from the mountains of Ararat/Urartu in the Near East? Or have all current marsupials speciated in Australia subsequent to the Deluge, i.e. within the last 4500 years?
Do "Moore lecturers" really think that God actually differentiated languages subsequent to an historical Babel episode, some time after the Deluge, i.e. post 2500-2300 BC? This would imply that current chronology of ancient civilisations and "prehistoric" cultural phases is seriously adrift. Do "Moore lecturers" work to some revised chronology?
I know these questions seem absurdly pedantic. But Michael J has claimed that "Moore lecturers" hold to the historicity of the events in Genesis. My questions arise from the implications of such historicity.
This guy isn't Moore, but raises some interesting issues pertaining to the questions you ask. What if there is biblical evidence that the flood could have been local?
I would go further. I think Genesis is primarily concerned with the events in the Middle East. The story relates to God keeping his promises to 'Eve' about her offspring ultimately crushing the serpent's head.
It is not asking how long the Australian Aboriginals have lived here, or scientific questions about the "out of Africa" genetic family tree. It is theological, not scientific.
I'm aware that many authors see Genesis 1-11 as one form of literature while the chapters following are another.
My main point is that we must approach Genesis as a theological work, or we're going to miss it under the whirlwind of modern questions.
We need to approach it appreciating the variety of Hebrew forms of literature: something I wish the average sermon focussed on more. We need to ask our congregations to absolutely BANISH the modern evolutionary questions from our minds until we have dealt with the theology in the text.
Only then can we, in humility and with plenty of caveats to our ignorance, explore the variety of possible scenarios that synthesise science and Genesis.
For starters on that synthesis try JI Packer's talk.
Then, even if the biblical language of the flood does not lean itself to local flood event, we can see it within the confines of the story. I'm hoping this is not too liberal for everyone, but I'm wondering if there are grounds for arguing that the flood extinguished 'all life under the heavens' and blotted out the biblical, Middle-Eastern world that the story is actually concerned with.
And as the local flood link I provided above does not seem to work, here it is again.
Local flood theory
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate where you're coming from regarding the theological agenda of the ancient texts. On my part, I see many aspects of the early chapters of Genesis as being counter-mythical (NB, not anti-mythical), that is, Israelite reframing/augmentation of cosmogonies and aetiologies that were influential in the ancient Near Eastern milieu.
As I read it, Michael J is contending that such theological construal of the text as you describe should not be taken to imply that the events in Genesis are somehow ahistorical/invented. He seems to be advocating a both/and rather than an either/or.
This is where I take issue with Michael. He remarks in #42 that "Moore lecturers" hold that Genesis is "describing in literary form events that actually took place". Now unless he has special, loaded definitions of "literary form", "events", and "actually" in mind, it would seem to me that his statement implies facts like:
- A 600 year old man, his family of seven, and a comprehensive zoo of animal breeding pairs (and select sevens) were the only survivors of a vast flood that destroyed every living thing on the face of the earth. This happened about 4500 years ago, according to patriarchal genealogies.
- Linguistic differentiation among humans is a divinely instigated containment strategy, prompted by their construction of a particular city and tower (Babel) in a specific place (Shinar). This occurred some time after the flood.
Dave, you seem to be looking for a sort of middle ground, eg. taking the Genesis references to "the whole earth" and "all flesh" as narrative hyperbole. I daresay you're able to find other explanations for the extraordinary lifespans of the patriarchs too, which allows far more chronological flexibility. That's all fair enough, but it does tend to militate against the perspicacity of Scripture. If Scripture states plainly that Noah was 500 years old when he fathered his three sons, 600 years old when the flood started, and 601 when it ceased, why not take it plainly? Were the authors of Scripture really trying to say something other than that the builder of the Ark was centuries old?
However, without a theology degree or training in Hebrew I'm not really qualified to comment. All I can say is that it 'feels' different to the eyewitness accounts of Jesus death and resurrection. Emotionally and intellectually I shouldn't have any problem with Noah being extremely old if I can accept that God exists, and that Jesus was his incarnate son, and that Jesus rose from the grave. An old man should be a trifling matter compared to these.
However, it has me scratching my head. It doesn't 'feel' right. Anyone else encounter this?
It just 'feels' like it is also addressing some other aspect of ancient literature. I'm aware that in some creation narratives 500 years old would seem diminutive: a joke! Other ancient narratives have their heroes around 10 thousand or 20 thousand years old. So I'm not sure if this is a Hebrew way of saying "Yep, and this guy was blessed with long life like your heroes: but not ridiculously so." I don't know. It just feels different. It feels like a creative narrative of events that occurred, rather than reading like the eyewitness accounts of the disciples.
As with the ark issue.
But I do not think it is an either/or issue at all. As far as my hebraic understanding goes, Jews liked to nuance and taylor stories to highlight the significance of certain things, but this doesnt mean that you write off the historicity, you just have to take into account that names, numbers, chronology, focus, adjectives etc are sometimes messed with to make a point. I hope I dont sound too liberal there.
But the best example is Matthews genealogy of Jesus. It is not a biological genealogy, but a theologically significant genealogy. All the names are of REAL people, who were REALLY in his genealogy, but he is missing people, and some of the people are connected oddly, but if you go through more detailed histories of the Kings and Israel's history (Chronicles) you can see how and why he did it. Matthew highlighted the Royal history of Jesus heritage and how Jesus' decendency is in two halves. Abraham to David, and the David to Jesus.
But there is both History, and an a-historical twist, to it.
This is called as far as I know Theocentric History. Jews know that there is a viewer bias so they use that to make a point... So I have gathered anyway.

Agreed Jonathon, which is why I didn’t say it. But it does make me wonder if I have misunderstood the passage? I was throwing it out there.
Nicely put. I’m just wondering how many ‘twists’ I’m ignorant of, not reading Hebrew or understanding the Ancient Near East cultures as I’d like to. However, just reading the Enuma Elish (the equivalent of a Babylonian National Anthem) was a mind-blowing experience. The similarities to Genesis 1 are many. After actually taking the time to read the thing, I could see why in various sermons they explained the author of Genesis as ‘correcting’ the Enuma Elish. The parallels in story and yet contrast in meaning are many.
I'd be surprised if there was a uniform view, and I'd actually be surprised if there was anything approaching a definitive view. I'm not having a go, that's just my hunch -- there's a lot of hand-waving and bet-hedging in broader academia as far as I can tell, because quite honestly no one's really worked it out. If you take the counter-mythical view you suggest, you're tarred and feathered for not being 'biblical' enough (no historic Fall, for example); if people take a literalistic view, they fall down the anti-science YECS rabbit hole.
As for Mark Baddeley's views (given Jeremy cited him), I discussed Mark's views with him in some detail earlier this year here on his blog.
He has what is (imo) a quite unusual position -- hammered by the YECS fundies for not being true to scripture; but then he doesn't find evolution particularly compelling as a lay person, which would get him hammered by the science community.
I've actually heard others say evolution is super, science & religion are fine, Gen 1 is myth, and then say history starts in chapter 2! Go figure...
Regarding your posts at #58 and #60:
I appreciate your candour about patriarchal lifespans that "don't feel right". And I get your gist about the plenitude of parallels. I've studied them myself, some in the original language.
If Genesis is perspicacious and its translations reliable, why should a thoughtful, educated reader like yourself have to second-guess at the intricacies of Hebrew rhetoric and extrabiblical cosmogonies? Why should the numbers assigned to lifespans be so consistently dubitable? Why should there be anachronisms like, for instance, camels in Egypt (Gen.12) and Philistines in Canaan (Gen.26) contemporary with Abraham?
Justifying such patent anomalies by appeal to some abstruse rhetorical category or "theological purpose" seems like special pleading to me. It's pretty clear that the authors of scripture just made stuff up sometimes, or were cavalier about the facts.
Also known as spin, exaggeration, bias. Take your pick. It's not particularly "hebraic".
This is a true story. Only the names, numbers, chronology, focus, and adjectives have been changed...but not to worry, it's all to make a point.
So messing with the facts doesn't seriously compromise factual reportage? If I reported to you that Samson slew 1000 Philistines with a donkey's jawbone, "to make a point" about his prowess, yet he only killed a dozen with a club, would you consider me a reliable witness? If I told you Noah was 500 when he first became a father but he was really only 30, would the supposition of some overarching "theological purpose" excuse my wild inaccuracy?
Why is it that biblical spin-doctoring is accorded such special-case reverence, yet if spin appears extrabiblically, a spade is called a spade?
Or what, Jonathon? You'll be cautioned by doctrine cops? :^)
I take it that Young Earth Creationist's believe God made the world, mankind sinned and messed up our relationship with God and with each other, and that the theological cues are in the passage. Eve's offspring will crush the serpent's head: a reference to Jesus which we spend the rest of the OT looking for as themes unfold and develop.
I agree with each of these points. There's the clarity of scripture for you: spelling out the gospel basics.
So my inquiries are into the more subtle aspects of scripture. If I believe Jesus walked on water, calmed storms, and ultimately resurrected, then there's no logical reason why I can't accept Noah was very, very old, maybe even 500. I'm just wondering if there's stuff I've missed, because Jews DO sometimes use numbers in a special way.
EG: 1000 means "heaps and heaps and heaps, a whole truck-full, LOTS!" EG: "God owns the sheep on 1000 hills". That doesn't mean God only owns the sheep around the lower Blue Mountains!
Such evocative poetic numerics are of an entirely different order to a particular age (600 / 99) assigned to a particular individual (Noah / Abraham) at a particular event (the onset of the Deluge / self-circumcision). Do you believe that Abraham's and Sarah's ages of 100 and 90 at Isaac's miracle conception are factual? Then you should probably also take Noah's vast age of 600 at the Deluge as factual, because both events are reported in the same prosaic way, nothing like the "1000 hills" figure in Psalm 50.
And Michael J still won't say whether the commitment of "Moore lecturers" to the notion that Genesis "describes events that actually took place" includes acceptance of enormous patriarchal ages during those events. As far as I can tell, the authors of Genesis simply thought Noah was centuries old at the Deluge, and assumed readers would accept that as a matter of fact. No numeric "twists".
I enjoyed your post. I do understand the apparent inconsistency, and dodge-balling that can be afforded to arguments that say: Well, thats just the way they talked about it, and then like a good politician just deftly avoid having to actually face any of the details of any of their policies.
But, I think the argument of Jewish prose does need further consideration. I personally do not consider it spin. Mostly because of the meticulous efforts of people like Luke in his Gospel, and in fact all the Gospel writers who do not leave out apparent contradictions and competing data from their histories.
As the Bible is about God's interactions with his people, and the telling of a story that culminates in God fulfilling all his promises in the Incarnation, Ministry, Death, & Resurrection of the person Jesus Christ: we find in the Bible four accounts of these events, and the actual letters of the apostles to churches starting to circulate just 30 years after he was crucified.
It is with faith in The God who brought Jesus that I do not believe it is spin. And it is with reason that I will now tell you what I believe is the difference. (And Chris Forbes, Historian of Macquarie University, spells this out much clearer than I)
On the other hand the tayloring of stories by the Jews is:
Making an obvious point out of the way that they compile a story. The actual manner in which they tell a story has its own message which is pretty clear to AN intended audience.
Chronicles is a book which has Theological Significance, but apparently is more devoted to facts and figures and just telling history as it is, with less "story telling" devices.
Kings on the other hand is specifically told to tell the theological significance of the Kings, and will compile the stories, not to erase competing data, or embellish helpful premises, but to PRONOUNCE theological significance and so make clear their point.
This would mean that in order to decide whether we CAN induce specific historical facts & figures we need to understand the context, the literary forms & genres, and if read in that light we should be able to know what we can specifically induce within each sphere: theology, metaphysics, history, genealogy, biology, psychology, geography etc.
This doesnt answer your specific questions originally but may help to indicate just how hard that is to do in a book like Genesis.
Thank you for taking the time to craft these responses. Not expected on my part, but appreciated.
Now about spin, you set up the following dichotomy:
1) BAD non-biblical spin:
2) GOOD, biblical not-spin-but "tayloring":
As far as I can tell, 2) is just a positive reframing of 1), i.e. the spin you have when you're not having spin . The key point of distinction between the two appears to be supplied in your post at #68 where you say:
In other words, the precondition of belief in Jesus transforms what would otherwise be considered spin into special-case "tayloring". There's more than a hint of circularity here.
Faith is key for me when realising that I don't have an answer for every conundrum. It is an integral part of the purpose of The Bible, to make people wise for salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ (2 Tim 3:14-16).
I do not believe that 2) is a positive spin on 1). Although a good spin doctor could elicit that :)
For me the key difference is that the literary and story devices would make sense to at least one intended audience. Spin is underhanded to the intended audience. These devices make sense to the audience and do not fool them at all.
The precondition of faith, is only helpful in considering that some audiences and even authors are very confusing, particularly genesis. Genesis 11-50 is clearly for the post Exodus audience of Moses, and carries literary devices intended to be understood by them. Genesis 1-11 could be a combination of devices understood by that audience as well as pieces of text that contain devices understood by audiences long dead. And many other academic problems and conundrums in working out the specifics of this text.
You regarding Scripture:
I find this appeal to complexity another instance of evasive special pleading. Asking a question like "This story about an ark constructed by a 600 year-old man, and the obliteration of the known world around 2400 BC: did that actually happen?" is sidestepped and also made to appear naive, clueless, out-of-the-know. The querent is not given a firm answer with which to grapple, but fobbed off with a litany of caveats.
The notion of "Theological Significance" is invoked as a sort of panacea for apparent textual ills. It's OK for "Theological Significance" to detach from actual events, hover around them, and selectively "taylor" them (no spin! not tendentious! no sir!) to support The Great Story. End justifies the means; theological agenda overrides mere accuracy.
Correct.
Why is it so hard if Scripture is truly perspicacious?
If the Bible says that David was divinely energised by the LORD to slay hundreds of Philistines enemies - that's tayloring.
If an Egyptian inscription says that Ramesses was divinely energised by Amun to slay hundreds of Hittite enemies (i.e. Battle of Kadesh) - that's spin.
Doesn't the distinction here depend merely on a pre-existing faith commitment?
I think you mean "perspicuous," not "perspicacious." Claims that the Bible is everywhere perspicuous do not reflect a claim the Bible makes for itself and ultimately arise out of ignorance about the nature of the Bible itself. A thoughtful, educated reader should realise this, particularly if that reader is familiar with the difficulties inherent in translating ancient texts.
(While I'm being pedantic, I think it ought to be "tailoring" not "tayloring.")
I'll just add that there are difficulties with many of the larger numbers in the Bible, not so much orthographic but semantic. The Greek translation of the OT frequently differs in its representation of the numbers, and there are suggestions that the meaning of the terms used for larger numbers are misunderstood. One particularly interesting examination of some of the numbers in Genesis can be found in Robert M. Best's Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic. While his arguments are not conclusive, it does give some insight into the difficulties associated with arriving at a true understanding of some of these numbers.
So, in the end, appeals to complexity are inevitable if we're to be honest with the text. I can't see that such claims are evasive or instances of special pleading any more than any other admission of the limits of our understanding in any field of study.
Nicely put Martin.
Thank you for the heads-up on my malapropisms. In my defence re Jonathon's "taylor", I did put it in quotes :^)
But there's the rub, Martin. Documents taken as The Word of God are not just "any field of study". Their wide diffusion and use, and the claims made for them are far more highly charged than, say, the Ziusudra Epic, or the Kadesh Bulletin, both of which are - let's face it - of minor import in the scheme of things. Only a small cadre of scholars will ever invest much energy in them. By contrast, whole denominational empires and myriad confessional allegiances are at stake when it comes to interpretation of the Bible. High stakes; even those with formidable erudition aren't detached.
Being honest with the text is laudable in all and obligatory for the specialist. But isn't there a point where such honesty admits, for the sake of the layperson, that, say, the Flood story is semi-legendary, and we don't need to take Noah's high age as factual?
You are an ANE specialist, Martin. Do you think the Flood as described in Genesis "actually took place", as Michael J's remarks at #42 imply? Did a 600 year-old man actually build and captain that big weatherproof casket? Seriously?
An increase or decrease in the charge associated with a study, does not change the process to understanding it. Just the politics surrounding it. :)
If The Bible is "The Word of God" then we would need to understand what being the "Word of God" means. It may be that diverse understandings of this account for the misuse of the power of The Bible. Like all things powerful, there is the danger of misuse (nuclear technology for one?)
I dont know TOO many denominations whose explicit faith-statments are at stake with a particular view on the historicity of Genesis. But certainly a lot of people's pride :)
As I asked Martin, do you think the Flood as described in Genesis "actually took place", as Michael J's remarks at #42 imply? Did a 600 year-old man actually build and captain that big weatherproof casket? Seriously?
I think: why not.
In terms of did Noah at 600, build the exact dimensions of the ark, at that exact calculable year what was it 2500 BC?, in a world wide flood? Don't know. I don't think I can rule it out. Probably wont be able to rule it out in my life. But I can totally understand in fact expect anyone who has not been convinced of the intervention of God in History by Jesus living, dying, and rising to new life, to believe AGAINST such an unbelievable story. Nothing about the Noah story convinces me of the Bible's historicity. But I am convinced of the Bible's truth, from the progression of the story of the nation of Israel, to the fulfillment of the promises in Jesus, to the tidal wave that was the early Christian church, and most importantly in the person who was (and is) Jesus: who I believe is who he said he is. And from there I have a high view of Genesis, but not a YEC view.
Ive looked into the whole history/evolution/flood-story/gondwanaland debacle. But I do not have an answer. And I'd be arrogant to say I did.
I'll take all that as a heavily padded, safety-netted "mmmyes, but" to my question at #78. Thank you for taking the trouble :^)
Jesus first, and it all makes sense, eh? I wonder whether Martin Enkidu takes the same approach, beneath the walls of Uruk...
One of the most interesting questions with Genesis IMO is: if we reject the YECS (and related) approaches to the text, and reject the idea that the Israelites were somehow the day-zero people, then what existing society did the Israelites emerge out of?
So, I'd be interested to know what Enkidu thinks about theories that the Israelites emerged out of/borrowed heavily from Ugarit/Canaanite culture and society (and were in Canaan all along), including their religious texts.
For example:
(Some more observations here. Yahweh being one of the seventy sons of El, and eventually merging with El is particularly interesting too.)
It seems like a reasonable question -- what were the surrounding circumstances that led to the emergence of Jewish mythology, if we're not reading it 'literalistically' -- but it's not one I've heard often dealt with!
I like your questions. The Yahweh-El syncretism is particularly interesting, I think; also the traces of popular/folk piety suggested by Moses' brazen serpent Nehushtan, Aaron's bull calf, and Asherah poles/figurines.
Very briefly and broadly, it seems to me that much of the Hebrew scriptures reflect the views of a movement among the Judahite elite - both pre- and post-Exile - that sought to overlay heterodox Israelite/Canaanite tradition with a Yahwist gloss.
I realise it's difficult for most believers to view ancient Israel in those sorts of detached terms - it can seem clinical and irreverent, even blasphemous. After all, the culture in question ain't heathen Egypt, or Assyria, or Babylon, or Hatti - it's freighted with divine writ and eternal consequence.
the article on Ugarit was very enjoyable, and thanks for sharing it.
Grant,
If Jesus himself does not feel tainted by association with the Nehushtan or Bronze snake, then I'm not sure what your point is?
I also don't know many biblical scholars that would want to try and cut off the cultural and religious references to the surrounding nations, as you seem to suggest? Rather than being threatened by it, our understanding of the times, and indeed, the bible are both enriched by it.
I am never sure if its worth getting in a conversation about this stuff, BUT. Are you referring to an Idea that the El as mentioned in hebrew is infact the traces of an evolved religion from the Canaanite Region?
If so: please investigate further than the word El itself. And please investigate further than an outer appearances of similar worship. Overlap could in fact be there for meaning sake.
In the Bible God radically acts (Noah,Abraham,Moses to name a few), and by his radical acts the worship is changed radically. But all (at least most) peoples were in worship of false gods. And again when Judaism had lost its connection with God, and the temple system itself had no integrity and purpose, God radically acted, and the worship that followed was radically changed.
Briefly,
Not quite. What's "news", in many cases, is that the notion of an "apostasy" can be explained historically - without recourse to actual divine intervention - as a construct of a particular Yahwist interpretation of Israel's history. When you believe that ancient Israel underwent an "apostasy" from some covenant with Yahweh, you are simply accepting the terms of reference, interests, and prejudices of a particular group in Israelite society. The question is, why is this narrow group alone - of all the many cultures in the world - definitively right about "God"?
I was simply remarking to Luke what interested me. No particular point. But since you have taken it further...
Nehushtan was destroyed in Hezekiah's iconoclastic purge:
"He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)" 2 Kings 18:4
Rather short-sighted of Yahweh, don't you think, first to ban graven images, then commission Moses to set one up as a healing icon (and one identified with the accursed deceiver of Eden at that)? Is it any wonder that it was offered incense, given that Yahweh had seemed to waive his own rules when it was first made?
Revealing too, that in 2 Kings Nehushtan is lumped together with other abominated paraphernalia of Israelite religion. Hezekiah is a Davidic dynast enforcing officially approved Judahite cult on a religiously diverse population. If you're a partisan of the Davidic dynasty, its imperial vision and its god - like the author(s) of 2 Kings - that's a good thing. Unfortunately, we don't get to read the view from the other side.
Yes, I am.
I have.
Again, I have. Rest you.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Anyway, I won’t push it and suggest that because they were ‘homesick’ for Egypt they were thinking of Wadjet. But Egypt, and indeed most Ancient Near East cultures, all worshipped snakes and snake gods of one form or another.
So here come the snakes to bite the Israelites! And how are they saved? By looking to the one who led them out of Egypt. He’s carrying a snake that’s been ‘domesticated’. It’s on a pole. That reminds me of how Bear Grylles (Man Vs Wild) might cook a snake. Or is the pole actually looking forward towards the cross, a man hanging on a tree? Whatever the case, the message appears to be about God’s sovereign control. He sends the snakes to discipline, but he can also use his servant Moses, a ‘type’ for Jesus, carrying a neutered bronze snake which heals. The message is clear. God is the boss, not just of snakes. So why worship one like the surrounding cultures? It is sad that later generations forgot this simple message.
Grant#78:
Well, Michael's qualification that the events are described in literary form is important because it allows for the possibility that the literary form has some bearing on the meaning of the text's affirmations. Beyond this, the historical, cultural, and linguistic context also needs to be appreciated to adequately determine the actual claims of the text.
So, for example, the claim is usually made that the flood depicted in Gen 6–9 was global. The text, however, makes no such claim. That's because the "whole world" for the ancient audience was not the entire globe, just a relatively small section in the near east (a rather unhelpful geographical description since it is neither near or east for those of us in Aus!). The Hebrew term ʾereṣ frequently rendered "world" in English translations usually just means "land." Of course the distinction between "land" and "world" in the ancient world was far less substantial than it is for a reader today. The text doesn't exclude the possibility that the flood referred to could have been global, but it doesn't affirm it either.
This highlights some of the difficulties with the flood story. So while I certainly believe it would be possible for God to flood the entire globe and to have people living many centuries, and so on, I'm not convinced that all these details accurately reflect the claims of the text.
So plugging land in, we get...
I remember the Sydney Anglican Heretics quoting scholars that made a very big deal about phrases like "and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." They said the Hebrew emphasis was all encompassing, so that while in the Hebrew the word 'land' can also mean 'world', the context here made it clear that it was talking about world. Do you have any information handy about the use of phrases like 'under the entire heavens'?
If not, I understand life is busy. Thanks for the comments above.
I’ve just been reading John Walton (NIV Application Commentary) who seems to side with a local flood on a number of grounds.
Many words in the text have many meanings.
1. “All†the earth is used in Gen 41:57 to say “all nations†bough grain from Joseph. Did that include aboriginals and Eskimo’s and Indians?
2. “Covering†the mountains. See Job 38:84, Jeremiah 46:8, and Malachi 2:13
As Walton says, it can be that “water does not cover by submerging as much as by drenchingâ€.
Malachi:
EG: Are the tears here really COVERING the altar, or drenching it?
“Fifteen cubits aboveâ€. Basically at this point I hate the NIV. I would never have guessed that the Hebrew read more like the following…
(Walton’s rendering).
Walton then presents how ‘from above’ can mean ‘upwards’.
So that we end up with ‘fifteen cubits upward rose the waters, and the mountains were drenched.’
Rather than the NIV’s
Now, I remember from other study that 'mountains' here can also be used as 'hills'. However, there's more. Walton suggests that an ANE view of the world is very different from ours. In a crude summary, quoting from Horowitz's "Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography", an illustration is given that concludes not all mountains are mountains. Some mountains are actually mountains of the God's, 'Cosmic mountains' which mark the ends of the known world, against which no earthly flood could ever succeed because they are more things of the heavens than of the earth, down where us mere mortals dwell. These cosmic mountains being submerged is inconceivable.
So Noah's ark drifts on the flood, comes to rest against the edge of the world (cosmic mountains) and rests on the foothills of Ararat and watches the tops of the foothills become clear as the flood-waters recede.
It seems to be about understanding ancient categories, and I had no previous awareness of these ANE distinctions between mountains and 'cosmic mountains'.
I appreciate your comments. Thank you both. Much is lost in translation, which perhaps explains some of the more egregious absurdities commonly derived from Genesis.
@ Martin,
The comment of Michael's that I originally took issue with was that Moore lecturers hold that such literary form does not imply a lack of factuality in Genesis. Michael's words at #42 again:
I am trying to get an idea of what Michael and Moore lecturers think "actually took place". I keep getting redirected to discussions of literary interpretation, which is a distraction from my query. You and Jonathon have both said essentially that there's no reason why God couldn't drown the entire globe in a flood or commission a multi-centenarian to construct a giant lifeboat. But what I am trying to ascertain is what Moore lecturers think actually took place(or did not occur). It should be possible to answer this in a fairly straightforward manner. If all that can be said is that, "Well we're not really sure," then Michael's original statement at #42 is misleading.
I was wondering if you could unpack for Grant why there is diversity of opinion on these matters? Would it be something about agreeing on the theology we receive from the texts, but that asking scientific questions of the passage results in a variety of scenarios that are as changeable as the science and archaeology in the discussion?
It's clear both of you maintain that the Hebrew of Genesis most likely describes a "local" Deluge. I'd like to get some clarification on whether you think the entire human race of that time (c.2400 BC? or when else?) was concentrated in the Deluge-affected area. In other words, were Noah and his family the only humans left on the planet after the "local" Deluge. Or were there people outside the flood zone, on other continents, whose cultures were unaffected?
Another thorny issue: The repopulation genealogies of Genesis 10 trace the peoples of, for example, the Nile valley (Mizraim and Cush) to Noah's son Ham. If the Nile valley was not wiped out in the "local" Deluge, then was it unpopulated prior to that Deluge and subsequently filled by Ham's offspring? Given that there is evidence of human cultures in the region going back to the Paleolithic, this would seem to indicate that either the Deluge was prior to that phase, and that these cultures are those of Ham's post-deluge descendants, or that the later, "local" Deluge did not affect the established inhabitants of the Nile valley. If the latter is the case, then what are Ham's Mizraim and Cush?
An historical "local" Deluge cuts off one of the Hydra's heads, but several more spring up from the stump.
What about the American Indians and Australian Aboriginals, or even African empires? We are not told. That is not the focus of the narrative. We are too busy bringing our own issues onto the text to let the text speak to us. We are using excuses to dodge the plain meaning of the passage: God is a Holy but also merciful judge.
And we'd better come to terms with that.
If you want to privilege the theological views of ancient Yahwists as exceptionally correct, go for your life! I'm not denying the theological import of their sacred cosmogony and genealogies, but let's not have any more nonsense about their factuality, eh? And that's not an arbitrary dichotomy.
At #98, Michael has backed away from his earlier blanket assertion at #42 of what "Moore lecturers" think about the factuality of Genesis, and supplied a more subtle, open-ended modification. Now he's basically saying their views are diverse on the matter, with a reiteration of the consensus party line, which is - as is common in political statements - ambiguous as to the substance. Fair enough.
I still think there's a good deal of equivocation (publically) from SydAng hierarchs about the relationship of "literary" readings of Genesis to "actual happenings" of the distant past. There's something a bit nudge-nudge, wink-wink about it all. I still have no clear idea what Michael J (or you, or Enkidu) thinks about the actuality of Noah, for example. If literary-theological readings of the text are principally what matters, then the actuality of Noah is of little-to-no consequence. So it should be safe to say - "I think 'Noah' is substantially a literary creation, with no necessary link to an actual person," if that's what you really think. But that doesn't happen. There's a sort of bet-hedging obfuscation.
As Michael says, "Sigh."
This kind of language suggests an anti-academic bias affecting your ability to process the data we have submitted above. You've decided before actually processing the case. It is a Kangaroo court, and you are here as Judge and Executioner, not inquirer. Let's be honest about it shall we?
On the theology, maybe not. Switching stories by way of example, I don't have to believe there was an actual talking snake in the garden to believe that Satan tempted the first humans.
However, the language around Noah, and the family blood lines, convince me there was a Noah, and Noah event, but I'm trying to honestly assess what scholars can actually draw from the language. Some of it seems ambiguous, and rather admit that is academically honest, you're being a little judgemental and snappy about it.
So what you call:
I call academic integrity. Whatever. If you're going to join the ranks of the angry atheists like Richard Dawkins and drag this into the gutter by attacking characters rather than engage an honest attempt to understand the source documents, I'm bored already. I can get enough of that watching ABC's Compass.
What has Dawkins got to do with anything I've said? I haven't cited him, nor expressed approval of his views, nor is he relevant to my questions. I haven't expressed any sort of solidarity with "angry atheists" (whoever they are). I'm not dragging anything into any gutters; no one's character been attacked. I have asked questions that have been dodged, and you're getting het up because I'm not diverted by the dodges. If that makes me "anti-academic", so be it; a chump I am.
Well, Genesis is pretty clear about the talking snake, but it makes no mention of Satan. We don't encounter his person till 1 Chronicles, Job, and Zechariah - not exactly the oldest parts of the OT - and there's nothing said about Edenic infiltrations there.
As for those Noachic "family blood lines" (?), they wouldn't be the 10 generations of patriarchs from Adam to Noah would they - the ones with all the multi-centenarians? Or are you relying on Luke 3, another case of "theological purpose" merging mysteriously with "actual happenings"?
Dave, you're free to be bored and annoyed, but I assure you, I have nothing to do with whatever irritates you about Compass (!??)
I'm talking about character attacks that ignore the substance of the debate, which is what Dawkin's and friends are famous for. Hitchins and the other 'new athiests' which seem to feature on Compass so regularly all seem to lack the intellectual rigour of the works of previous generations. Their works are less coherent arguments and more about personal accusations and taunts. I'm glad you're not that familiar with their work. I'm not an expert on them, but am familiar enough with some of their claims and tactics that I thought I recognised something of them in your writing. I apologise if that is not the case.
But basically, you still seem to insist that your questions have not been answered when the correct reply seems to be that the scholars have a variety of answers and opinions. None of them satisfy you, so you start dishing out the 'nudge nudge, wink wink'. If that's the case, then I'll say no more as you are only here to criticise, and this is a waste of time.
My issue has never been with diversity of scholarly interpretation. My issue has been with the impression Michael J gave that Moore lecturers uniformly hold that Genesis describes events that actually happened. Michael has since modified that initial assertion, which amounted to a misrepresentation (inadvertent, I'm sure) of his colleagues.
You seem annoyed by having someone prod your carefully constructed interpretive framework. That's understandable. And you're exasperated that I haven't been convinced by your resort to *literary/theological purpose* to mitigate incongruities arising from the supposition of the text's historical accuracy.
I repeat, I haven't made any character attacks. Taking someone to task for making possibly misleading statements is not a character attack. And it appears that by "substance of the debate" you mean your underlying premise that *literary/theological purpose* somehow exempts the text from the sort of questions I ask of it. I don't accept that, and my posts indicate clearly why I don't.
And do you, Jonathon Ray, and Enkidu exhaustively represent "the" scholars?
Rubbish, you you want to show me where he 'modified' it?
No! What on earth gave you that idea? Did you think you had some sort of captive audience of all OT scholars here, eagerly awaiting every pedantic little stamp of your foot?
I'm just your average "Sydney Anglican" pew-sitter mate, not a Moore College grad let alone lecturer. So no, I definitely don't qualify as a biblical scholar. If you can bother to read what I actually wrote, I was just quoting other scholars.
Personally, I think the Noah event is probably discussing the Black Sea flood.
So while that may be the historical event, given the ambiguities in the Hebrew text before us, given the level of scholarly debate, and given my ignorance of the ANE world-view and their assumptions when reading such a passage, I'm going to humbly plead some ignorance of how exactly the Hebrew literary devices in Genesis transliterate the historical reality. I suggest you do the same.
I've been as clear as I can.
I'm done.
Well, the biblical account actually claims that the nation of Israel arose out of a small group whose origins lay somewhere in Mesopotamia and migrated to Canaan (Gen 12–13). Syncretism of sorts was almost the default position in the aNE — you had your primary god (sometimes a local deity) but also acknowledged an array of other deities. I think the connection to Adam in the genealogical records of Genesis doesn't ultimately privilege the Israelites exclusively, their distinctiveness ultimately arises out of Abraham (and even then only through some of his descendants).
I think the biblical material affirms the idea that the bulk of the Israelite population was strongly influenced by Canaanite religion and ideas (ISTM Ugarit is a little far removed although features prominently in discussion because of the wealth of material from there). I don't think the archaeological evidence currently does or is likely to offer sufficient detail to allow us to determine the provenance of the ruling classes of Israel. The general population was syncretistic (as were the rulers at various times according to the Bible).
#42 (bold mine):
This is a blanket statement implying that Moore lecturers en masse think that Genesis generally describes events that actually occurred.
#98 (bold mine):
This statement suggests that not all Moore lecturers necessarily think that Genesis describes events that actually occurred. There is a diversity of opinion. And although Michael casually characterised Moore lecturers en masse in #42, now in #98 he admits he doesn't speak on their behalf.
That I have not had such an "audience" is precisely my point, Dave. You give the impression that you're the one engaging with "the scholars" (whoever they are), and I'm just some isolated pedant. The foot-stamping is yours, Dave.
I guess I did ask you a question and so I owe you this right of reply.
Those 2 statements do not amount to a “misrepresentation of Michael’s colleaguesâ€. Both can be seen as consistent with the position I’ve been trying to describe to you. As I said above:
In other words, Michael implied that most Moore lecturers do not see the whole Noah story as ‘made up’, but based on something that actually happened in history. However, there are a variety of debates as to exactly what that something was, given the variety of ways of reading the Hebrew and understanding the claims of the passage from historical analysis.
It is answering the questions of a modern audience where there may be differences: and that is where Michael is just being honest about there being some subtle differences in how Moore approach this scientifically.
EG: Given your repeated attacks about Australian animals, you seem to have discounted the ‘local flood’ theories as ‘nudge nudge, wink wink’. I wonder why? Do you have any idea what the arguments are for the local flood? Have you studied the use of 'kol erets' (the whole land / the whole earth) in other parts of the bible?

EG: Which makes more sense in the Noah story?
Do you really think Genesis was claiming the whole world dried out and became a desert? What do you choose to plug in here: 'whole earth/planet' or 'whole land'?
Gen 8:6-7
‘the water was dried up from the earth’
‘the earth was completely dry’
Planetary desert? Now that's a disaster! ;-)
Doesn’t it make more sense that ‘the land’ was completely dry? It is consistent with the Hebrew, but would require us to change the globalist leanings of the English, and challenge assumptions in today's culture — assumptions you've fallen for.
In your quest for blood you have completely ignored this part of the debate. There’s much more evidence for a local flood here.
I didn't say that. I didn't even mention the "local flood" theory in that context. I wrote: "I still think there's a good deal of equivocation (publically) from SydAng hierarchs about the relationship of "literary" readings of Genesis to "actual happenings" of the distant past."
And I was not referring to you, though you subsequently took umbrage.
I have no particular beef with a "local flood" theory per se. I think the scholarship you have cited in support of it is fair enough, and that the Hebrew of Genesis is more likely than not to be depicting a local Deluge. And this theory is not new to me at all (including the possible link with the Black Sea flood), though I haven't studied it in the detail you have. My point is that I don't think the "local flood" theory renders an historicist/faith-in-the-facts reading of Genesis any less fraught with potential absurdities. I sketched a couple at #100 above.
As I've already suggested, if you find the ancient Yahwist theological lens on the past to be exceptionally clear, good for you. Not all of us ignorami are so convinced by your literary/theological view. It does matter to some folk whether a god who is supposed to have intervened so dramatically in the ancient world actually did so as described.
2. There is significant scholarly and literary work showing how the Hebrew Noah account is a highly structured literary work involving many complex literary devices. Deal with it.
3. Negotiating our way between one and the other is a lot of work and involves synthesis between one set of concerns and disciplines and another completely different set of concerns and disciplines. Deal with it.
4. Therefore your last sentence, and especially last 3 words, are a case of special pleading way beyond anything you have established, or can establish. Deal with it.
I'm well and truly done here, and am not going to continue 'feeding the troll' as they say.
Regarding your demands at 1), 2), and 3) - I have already "dealt with" them. That does not necessarily entail agreeing with you about them in every aspect. Regarding 4), your peremptory tone and wishful, intricate deus ex machina will not dispel it.
Clearly, I've hit a nerve. Perhaps you should deal with that before issuing orders.
As a student at Moore in the 70s, I heard the then principal, Broughton Knox, hint that he was a young earth creationist. Literalistic? Other lecturers were theistic evolutionists.
I accepted the theistic evolution, millions of years, local flood, etc story, believing that science had proven it.
20 years later, I discovered that science works best in the present, by testing theories in repeatable experiments. Non-repeatable past events can only be guessed at by scientific methods. Historical events need historical methods, especially written documents.
Also the available evidence actually supports the historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11 pretty well.
So I agree with Grant that there are many problems with trying to interpret Genesis 1-11 to accommodate atheistic naturalistic scientism.
But I disagree with Grant, and all who do not accept the historical account of Genesis 1-11. The universe was created perfect in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. Adam was made from the dust, not a pre-existing hominid, Eve from his side. Their sin introduced death and the curse. The early humans lived hundreds of years. About 1600 years later God sent a global flood. Only Noah and those on the ark survived. Confusion of languages at Babel scattered their descendants. God gave reliable propositional revelation by his Spirit so we would know. Jesus endorsed it.
Just for your assurance. I am also not a scholar. Simply a studious mind. I would also not want you to come out of conversation like this, and be convinced by us on the historicity of Genesis. You are clearly a learned fellow and I would hope that your own studies continue to bring you closer to "the truth". I dont think this sort of platform ever really does that for anyone who has applied a lot of effort into the topic outside these formats.
When it comes to the Christian canon of the Scriptures it stands or falls with Jesus. The book of Genesis speaks theological truths that point to Jesus primarily, and the extent of its dot for dot historicity is something that would require a really ANE worldview coupled with an understanding of the audiences context. This is paramount in understanding ANY TEXT be it my wedding speech, Tacitus' histories or a Log from a Court proceedings in Canada in the 1990's.
I am 100% sympathetic to all Y.E.C's because of their strong faith in the Word of God telling them how it is, and how it happened. And in my personal epistemology I have to say that I would have to lean in their direction if I needed to answer the question truthfully with a knife against my neck, because I do not have the indepth understandings of the peculiar sciences of Evolution & historical geology. That being said Grant.
It seems you are concerned that Martin, Dave & I are dodging bullets by not prescribing you how it all fits together,(continued)
[Might I first add that I am not completely convinced by your evidences, but would prefer to talk in person to be able to discuss sources, presuppositions of each argument, and explore the different options (in other words they are evidences I have come across before and am not interested in debating in this manner).]
I do not need to get to the bottom of this to be comfortable with Genesis. I am happy to let others dedicate their lives to this long task. "The actual happenings" that matter the most happened in Jesus' life, death & resurrection. It is him as a person in history that convinces me of the theological truths in Genesis, and of God's inspiration of the Christian Canon of The Scriptures.
Peter an eye witness and disciple/apostle of Jesus said of The Old Testament: He was personal witness, but christians have something "more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."(continued)
Historicity is important. So important that there are four gospels, and 66 differnt books in the bible written by 47 plus authors over 1500 plus years and by all those different men, in different contexts God speaks one story, and it starts in Genesis, and culminates in Jesus.
I hope this clears up why at least I am comfortable in fence sitting, why I dont buy into the evolved religion idea yet find it far more interesting than the ancient world evolution/geology/history debate. And it may help in understanding how the others in this conversation are happy to have a view, and be uncertain. It is not blind faith, but rather it is faith through reason, and a healthy academic and epistemological humility.
Thanks again for taking the time to craft such considered and irenic responses to my captious comments. I can see you have affinities with a YEC view, and some openness to a more "literary" approach, a la Dave Lankshear. Like him - and indeed like all SydAngs - you primarily see Christ as the great prism through which the truth of Scripture is perceived - that's no news to me.
You may be content with "fence sitting", as you call it, but I'm afraid I lack that "healthy academic and epistemological humility" that makes such a perch tenable. Put it down to temperament, or the devil. I have studied certain cultures of the ANE in some depth, one at postgraduate level, and so I doubt the intellectual integrity of those who consign the hard-won findings of those disciplines to the Procrustean bed of YEC, with its 6,000 year old planet, 600 year-old ark-builder, and Babel diaspora. I realise you aren't entirely of that ilk, but I have no sympathy for your sympathy for YEC. To me, such a position is on a par with theories about Atlantis and global conspiracies: nutty at best; creepily deluded at worst. If God requires that of his followers, I am content to be damned.
Thank you for your kind wishes with regard to my "own studies". I also wish you all the best with your journey. May your studious mind be blessed!
Did you not introduce the topic? "Literalistic?"
It was a good discussion. Just a minor point. I sympathize with YEC views because of their high view of scripture. I'm more likely to think an event happened rather than not. But I hold each issue on their own merits, and appreciate complexity. I am also not an innerantist in that I do not believe in any communication do u get the facts100% because you need to speak to your audience, who have erroneous views, not God who is perfect. And a point must be made. Some people care that magnetic north is not true north, others don't. A fully YEC view says magnetic north is true north, the magnets are just wrong.
Some of them - he was quite the thaumaturge. Others were performed for him by his biographers.
He died because he gave the powers-that-be the jitters in a highly charged, high stakes situation. It was expedient to get rid of him. One can identify cathartically with his agony, but on its own it doesn't erase anyone's crimes or human failings. Human sacrifice has never worked.
Most of what is said about the resurrection in the Gospels is storytelling. There is, I think, an irreducible, enigmatic core phenomenon which admits several interpretations. But the wound exhibitions et alii are made up.
Luke's farewell liftoff is pious stageplay. "God's right hand" is a metaphor for Jesus' vindication, so I don't object to that per se.
I don't know. It seems highly unlikely, if you're talking zappy cloud-riding and enraptured floating saints. Perhaps the world is already being sifted and we're not even aware.
Creation is renewed every day, and every moment. The rest is up to us, for better or worse.
I think this oversimplifies my position. First, I think that the Bible reflects much of its ancient context (language, ideas, etc.) but does not necessarily affirm all these. So it is necessary to adopt Hebrew to communicate to Hebrew speakers without privileging the Hebrew language as somehow superior to all others. Likewise it is necessary to reflect aspects of ancient cosmology in order to communicate some ideas without endorsing that cosmology. Were the Bible originally written to us today the account of creation would doubtless be somewhat different, but if it were written using scientific ideas with which we are unfamiliar today (supposing, for example, that current science is proven inadequate in some ways by future research) then it would make no sense to us. So when communicating to an ancient audience it is necessary to embed the information in language which made sense to them.
Then it is necessary to understand what the text is affirming. In doing so it is also necessary to understand its relationship to related accounts. So is the flood a re-telling, a correction, a parody, some other form, or a mixture of these?
So what are the implications of this for the flood narrative? I'd argue that much of Gen 1–11 employs a literary style which distinguishes it from standard biblical historiography and so it cannot simply be assumed to be a straightforward retelling of history (which is not to say that it isn't meant to convey historical information). Hence I am more confident of the theological claims made by the text than the historical ones.
This is such an important point, particularly in Genesis where we would like to have something simple and black & white. Something to stand for, or something cut down. But its so obvious its not even funny. I don't explain things in terms not understandable by the audience receiving the message, otherwise I will have no message at all.
Your careful scholarship humbles this potsherd. Thank you for the clarification; I concur with your approach and method.
Personally, I see it as an adapted legend - reframing a widespread, mnemohistoric Flood story (a dimly remembered catastrophe, "Black Sea" or other) according to Judahite terms of reference. There are mythical allusions, eg. the four male-female pairs (an ogdoad) that survive the floodwaters echo Egypt's Hermopolitan and Djeme ogdoads of cosmogonic pairs that are differentiated within the primeval waters. Noah |~| Nw. Both the Genesis and the Egyptian material also include a primeval mound that emerges from the waters (Ararat/Urartu in Genesis). I suppose these mythic echoes in Genesis are deployed to strengthen the point that the post-Flood world is a cosmogonic restart, a renewed creation.
With regard to these mythic allusions, the gist of the Genesis treatment, it seems, is to thoroughly humanise the primordial entities (just as it disdeifies and objectifies heavenly bodies in the creation account), possibly integrating them with figures from an ancestor list (Noah the tenth name from Adam). None of this is conclusive, of course :^)
Matthew 24:37-39
Luke 17:26-27
As a Jewish man, Jesus subscribed to Jewish tradition. That he cited such tradition neither confirms nor denies the factuality of elements within it, in terms of modern historiography.
I can refer to Homer, saying "When Poseidon was watching from Samothrace...", without necessarily believing a being called Poseidon actually did so.
That said, it would be unsurprising if Jesus did think Noah was an actual person. After all, Jesus was a man of a particular context, so it follows that he would hold to the presuppositions of that context. Doesn't mean we have to.
having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."
The primeval mound parallel is intriguing, but overall I think there are stronger links to Mesopotamian mythology than Egyptian (although I know some differ and I wouldn't exclude either as contributing to the background data). However, as you imply, the Genesis account also seems to include a corrective or apologetic element which reframes ideas in the light of the monotheism of the Bible. This can be seen repeatedly throughout Gen 1–11.
Andrew#136
I think that Grant's point is valid. It isn't quite as self-evident that the passages you've cited demonstrate that Jesus believed that Noah was a historical figure. For example, I may appeal in a sermon to the example set by the good samaritan without affirming the historical existence of such a person. The aim is to communicate a particular message, and appeals to shared knowledge in order to reinforce the message don't necessarily require that the shared knowledge must be history (particularly, I would have thought, in the two passages you've selected).
You are right about that, I think. Moving on to Moses, Egyptian echoes become stronger, as one might expect :^)
The way we read early Jewish mythology is extremely interesting to me (and let's call a spade a spade, the ark etc is myth), as even if we acknowledge that it's not strictly literal, the popular way of reading it is very much a case of 'day zero/as it's written', especially with the fear of being 'liberal' and not 'true to the word' (which is oxymoronic, but be that as it may).
But when you scratch below the surface, it opens up so many interesting questions -- like if the Genesis myths emerged out of the religious/cultural milieu of the time, were they co-opted by divine power *after* their emergence, as something that approximated enough about the divine that God could work with, and through (ultimately in Jesus)?
Was the emergence of monotheism a human phenomena that was the result of the ongoing natural experiment that is our existence, and that's what God began to work with? Can we distance the nasty parts of the OT (genocide, etc) as the human religion (just like all other religions at the time) that was eventually totally co-opted (more or less) and transformed with Jesus?
We ignore the ugly parts of the OT anyway, may as well accept a reasonable explanation for it :)
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I concluded my post at #137 with "After all, Jesus was a man of a particular context, so it follows that he would hold to the presuppositions of that context. Doesn't mean we have to." The last sentence was not meant to suggest that one should set at naught Jesus' teachings/theology. I was speaking more narrowly of the distance between the first century and the twenty-first century in terms of historiographical principles and cosmological suppositions. I am not claiming that our present day points-of-view are somehow morally superior to those of Jesus' time, only that they are inevitably different. And we should not have to disown our own context and privilege another in search of certitude. Such certitude is bound to be illusory. Translation - in the deepest sense - is required.
This is where the slippery slope of rejection of the historical accuracy for all times of the Bible leads. Grant is being entirely consistent. Half way approaches are not.
But Scripture proclaims that "God has spoken", in the Scriptures, by the prophets, by His Son (Hebrews 1), using "propositional revelation" (D B Knox), in a way clearly understandable by people of all times. Heaven and earth may pass away, but His Word shall not.
Michael, I pray this is what is still taught at Moore College.
Everything depends on what you apply the concept of "metaphor" to.
The Word of God does indeed contain many metaphors. And also many accurate historical narratives.
Are you implying that YECs confuse the two? or were you aiming at someone else?
Cheers
Frank
I daresay Michael and many other SydAng hierarchs try to maintain a position I would characterise as Odyssean: holding a steady course between Skylla (thee) and Charybdis (me).
Eventually, Odysseus lost all his ships, but he did make it home.
Such "historical narratives" may be accurate in terms of protagonists, setting, and chronology, but that does not necessarily extend to their interpretation of those elements.
An example:
The books of Samuel relate the lives and times of Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, David, and many others - actual individuals from early Iron Age Israel. There is a very high probability that Samuel - or its main sources - was composed quite close to the time of the events it describes.
We can learn from Samuel, say, that:
1) David was for a time a mercenary in Philistine service;
2) The Philistines routed the army of Israel's king Saul at Mt Gilboa.
Samuel not only reports these events; it interprets them for us in a way that is favourable to David. It could be termed an apologia for David's conduct and divine election, in what was evidently a complex and, in some respects, shady career.
A properly historical reading of Samuel today (distinct from a devotional one) requires a critical engagement with the text's apparent pro-David bias, just as for any account of a figure of the past. And the results of such engagement may not always be to the taste of such readers as you, who are committed not only to uphold the facticity of the events reported, but also the bias with which they're reported.
"History" may not be quite the staunch ally you seem to think it is.
I think a good place to start is here: www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
Conservative, but at least it honours some of the complexity of the issue.
It is not the interpretation of men: YEC or theistic evolution, but
the enlightenment by The Holy Spirit. The Word does not act alone but
with the Spirit. This is how God's word is understandable by people of all times.
1 Cor 2:11-13 "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words."
The Bible is clear on how to make us wise for salvation (2 Tim 314-16) but it is the Spirit that gives us this understanding.
This is not a promotion for some sort of spiritualized interpretation of Scripture, (for that would not be Spiritual at all), but rather a licence for Scripture to interpret Scripture, and man to humbly follow what has been revealed to him. In my opinion Genesis 1-11 is not asking us to understand history, but to understand God. This understanding of the doctrine of scripture also appeals to the primacy of Christ's agenda, not our own.
The frank depiction of the dark sinful side of David, and other ugly scenes in the OT, are in line with God's repeated demonstration that human sin is a problem in even the best, and all the rest, (including me and you), deserving the judgement of eternal death for us all. Only the human sacrifice of the perfect God-man Jesus could atone for our sin, and save us from God's wrath. We all need to repent, and believe in Jesus, to be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life. Have you?
Jonathan,
Yes the Spirit's work is essential, in our understanding of Scripture, but also prior to that in the inspiration of the human writers of Scripture, and the preservation of their writings. The Spirit inspired the writing of historical truth, in a way understandable by all people of all time. Even a child can understand the basics - God created perfectly, sin spoiled, and Jesus saves.
Evangelism is via the whole of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. It centers on the person, words, and work of Jesus, known to us today only via the written Scripture, revealed to minds enlightened by the Spirit. Take away the initial foundation in Genesis and the rest of the story has many loose ends. Every word of God has its important place.
Peace and Grace
Agreed on the Spirit's inspiration and enabling of the scripture to speak the truth. I am dubious as to whether Evangelism means convincing people of Genesis' literally-literal-makes-historical-sense-in-English-translation of chapters 1, 2-6, or 6-11.
And as a less important, sneaky second point. I am interested as to where The Bible says the creation was perfect when God made it.
Also agreed that every word of God is important and has its place, it just might not be what we want it to be.
Peace.
Every word of God is true. The Scripture cannot be broken. Whoever dares to add or take away will be proven to be a liar, or deceived.
Just not sure that means people need to remove their God given rationality that has led them through general revelation to believe in a different geological, historical & scientific understanding of the events that exist in Gen 1-6 in particular and 6-11 as well.
But on the point of evangelism:
1. God gave man rationality, that we may see his ordered universe, seek God, and respond to his calling & word etc.
2. From that rationality many men believe in Old Earth, evolution, long histories of civilizations etc.
3. When these men read Genesis 1-11 they either need to throw away their rationality, throw away the bible, or have a different understanding of Genesis 1-11 or of their sciences.
4. Since their sciences appear to be very solid, backed up by many people of different opinions and evidence just keeps coming in to support this view, they are left with rejecting either their minds, or the bible.
5. A belief in Genesis 1-11 will not be sufficient for salvation.
6. Some pre-enlightenment theologians did not believe in a literal Gen 1-11.
7. Augustine was not a 6 day creationist.
Therefore: do not place a stumbling block in front of the cross, these men could be fantastic men of faith holding fast to both the minds that God gave them, and the salvation Jesus offers.
GE 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
(Then, the perfect new creation will correspond to the perfect original creation.)
ISA 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
ISA 11:7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
ISA 11:8 The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
(sin introduced death and decay for the whole creation into God's "very good" creation)
RO 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"
Ro 8:19 "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
Rev 21:4 There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
Rev 22:3 "There shall be no more curse"
The curse affecting the whole creation was the result of sin, which occured after the creation was finished, perfectly good.
You are asking excellent questions about the relationship between truth in the sciences and truth in God's Word.
Yes, there will be no contradiction between anything that is truly true in God's whole creation, natural or spiritual.
If there appears to be, there is something we have not understood, or some facts we do not yet know.
You need to think about
1. The limitations of science. The physical sciences properly deal with material and observable substances and processes. This immediately rules out the spiritual dimension (God, heaven, hell, angels etc). (as well as emotions, aesthetics, and ethics)
2. The difference between experimental science (in the present), and historical science (about the past).
No one sees any conflict between anything in the Bible, and experimental science in the present - physics, chemistry, electronics, aerodynamics, rocket science, medicine, etc. Many Creation scientists are experts in these areas.
The only area of conflict is about past history. At base it is about whether God has acted in the past in a way that is different to his normal mode of operation in the present in consistent "natural laws".
Every miraculous act of God is outside of natural law. The bible records many such, clustered around key occasions. Creation out of nothing; redemption out of Egypt, wilderness wanderings, and entry into Canaan; Elijah and Elisha; Jesus and the early church. Science says miracles are impossible. (cont)
The reason I say this is that I dont think God ever intended a simple return to Eden. In Heaven we will worship the lamb that was slain, an eternal characteristic of God, but something not yet printed in history, not yet experienced by His people. It is something so glorious God used all of history to get it.
Some of those "ugly scenes" are expressly commissioned by Yahweh himself, eg. the mass slaughter of Canaanite women and children by Israelite warriors. As for David, scriptural disapproval of his "dark side" is not always evident, indeed his nastier machinations are as often minimised, reframed, or tacitly excused.
Like I said, human sacrifice never works.
Such peremptory ultimata don't work on me, Frank.
...and resistance is useless; yeah, I know the drill.
There is ONE miraculous event in history that faith hinges on: The Resurrection. Paul says it in 1 Corinthians: if Christ has not been raised our faith is in vain. It is not a correct theology or understanding of Genesis that saves. Truth alone cannot save. Only Jesus.
“I have said, that Moses does not here subÂtly desÂcant, as a philosoÂpher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planÂets and stars; but astronomers make a disÂtincÂtion of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firÂmaÂment. Moses makes two great lumiÂnarÂies; but astronomers prove, by conÂcluÂsive reaÂsons that the star of SatÂurn, which on account of its great disÂtance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difÂferÂence; Moses wrote in a popÂuÂlar style things which withÂout instrucÂtion, all ordiÂnary perÂsons, endued with comÂmon sense, are able to underÂstand; but astronomers invesÂtiÂgate with great labor whatÂever the sagacÂity of the human mind can comprehend.â€
The most important point is this: I cannot even comprehend Calvin's cosmology, it is that different to our own. Noone talking about a flat-earth is "lying or decieving" during Augustine's time. How can we put our modern cosmology on Genesis, when I cant even do that to Calvin? And Calvin certainly wont do it to Genesis. The Bible was written to be comprehended clearly by its particular audience first.
But the sacrifice of Jesus is different, unique.
Jesus says: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:45.
"we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:18
Who should I believe, Grant or Mark?
If the sacrifice of Jesus "did not work", then I have no hope of escaping God's wrath.
It is true that God "commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
But to repent and believe is not a peromptery demand. It is an earnest plea from love, and an amazing offer of free pardon and life forever in God's family.
"We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor 5:20
Please.
Peromptory
Yes the resurrection is crucial. But it is subject to the same difficulties with science as is creation.
Scientists know that dead men do not rise to immortal life. It cannot be done. How do you know Jesus rose? Were you there to see it? Can you prove it by some scientific experiment?
Belief in a specific claim on the miraculous is another.
Belief in the mechanics of a miracle is another question all together.
They might be similarly difficult to scientists for question 1, but they are very different claims for the second two questions. And the resurrection is of specific importance to the gospel, unlike the mechanics of creation.
Yes. The resurrection is vital.
We are saved by repenting and believing in Christ crucified for our sins, and risen. Not by our interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
But God has given us the whole Bible to help us understand the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection.
The more complete our understanding of the whole Bible, the more we appreciate what God has done for us. If we ignore or misunderstand any part of the Bible, our understanding and appreciation of Jesus will be reduced.
As you quoted earlier, "ALL Scripture (including Genesis 1-11) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
No, people do not
"need to remove their God given rationality that has led them through general revelation to believe in a different geological, historical & scientific understanding of the events that exist in Gen 1-6 in particular and 6-11 as well."
We just need to use our reason to be aware of the limitations of the scientific method in dealing with past events, and especially miraculous past events.
And even if it confuses us, God still loves us. He does not require us to know and understand everything. :-)
I'm going to assume you're including me among Grant's "supporters" in making this response. If that is the case, then you've misunderstood quite profoundly. I neither wish to "de-mythologise" or "de-supernaturalise" the Bible. Rather, I want to understand it on its own terms, as it would have been understood by those who originally heard the words in their original language. The a-priori insistence that any particular text must be understood as history is akin to insisting that the good Samaritan must be a historical figure or else one is guilty of undermining the truth of the Bible. If avoiding the slippery slope keeps one from the truth then it is no help at all!
I'm sorry that you may have been tarred with the brush of *Grant support* by Frank. Be assured that I do not consider your Christian integrity at all diminished by your fair-minded support of some points I've made. Nor should anyone else.
Thanks for sharing the (very apposite) Calvin quote at #164. The point you make about the variability of cosmological views among Christian divines and biblical authors is well made. I salute!
I have a lot of time for your gracious attitude; it's a privilege to contend with you.
I do not question the integrity or truthfulness of you or anyone who takes the trouble to post on this site. I hope you will allow that I also seek truth.
D B Knox said the most dangerous error for me to have is the one I am not aware of.
Most of our differences spring from different pre-suppositions.
Yes, the good samaritan story is not historical. :-)
But many parts of the Bible are an accurate record of historical events, with divinely inspired interpretation - also poetry and prophecy etc. But which is which?
If your pre-supposition is that God was not much involved in the recording and preserving of truth in historical parts, then you will try to correct, de-mythologize or re-interpret them.
Grant does this honestly and consistently, to the point where he has said he rejects most key supernatural christian doctrines. Does this concern you, Martin?
If your pre-supposition is that God IS truth, and in his love and power is able to inspire people to write truthfully and clearly about his own actions, and purposes, in a way understandable to ordinary people of all times and cultures, then you will take the Bible more seriously than the guesses of un-inspired humans.
If I am lead to reject the truth spoken and lived by the Son of God, who said "I am the truth",and who endorsed OT history, there is something wrong with my pre-suppositions or methods. To dare to correct Him is really shocking presumption and insult.
μὴ σαλπισῇς ἔμπÏοσθεν σου
...else you have received your reward.