The Order of Creation

[katiesevenfour]

Would anyone be able to shed light on why there are two differing orders of creation within the bible? To my mind it's because it was changed by men over the years and they didn't edit very well and remove their contradictions once the new material had been written. I'm sure there are other views than mine. The orders are as below. In the second account, women are made from a man, not equal to men as in the first account. I would guess because this is a reflection of the times it was written in when men were seeking to dominate women and make them second class citizens, an achievement that still exists to this day in many countries around the world. Not an achievement of God who considers all beings equal regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or sexuality in my humble opinion. It's humans who have a problem with the boiling pot of diversity alive on our planet today, not God.

The Differing Orders of Creation:

Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

[otseng]

Yeah, the level of honesty you use here is terrible, and really tells me that you really aren't a literalist when it come to "Thou shall not lie".

Those threats are meaningless to someone like me, or someone who sees through the BS.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid the personal attacks and the profanity.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[TheJackelantern]

Not only is the order of creation wrong

How is the order of creation wrong?

Already outlined it a few pages back, no need to circle back over this again. Especially when the order of events requires intentionally ignoring modern knowledge in cosmology, physics, things like supernova, time and speed vs distance, the fact that CBR is not a light source for plants, no star no plant life, or that Earth cannot be made without first a place to be made in. The whole Earth primacy thing fails alone.. And The creation story is really just a stab at guessing night vs light order of events..

Example.. I can make sense of the bible really easy for you...

1. Earth was formless and dark
2. Light was created and day and night cycle made
3. Land and oceans/lakes/rivers made
4. Plants ect
5. Sun and moon then the stars

Likely observation

1. It's night time and a philosopher ponders creation order.. Earth appears formless and Dark.. Thus thinks First there was a formless dark earth
2. It's break of Dawn before the sun comes up and there is light that separates day and night
3. At dawn earth begins to take form and the oceans and water apear to reflect light and the water appears to gather and the land rise
4. Plants, tree ect show up, next
5. The sun rises.. and then through out the day it turns to evening the the Moon becomes visible and then the stars..
6. And the rest is interpretation of the days after.. ect.

Easy to see it that way, makes sense, and doesn't trip over itself like those claiming it to be the creation of earth in a cosmological sense.

[Shermana]

WRONG. Exactly, I said it was never meant to be TAKEN literally, by the community, the reader.

If it wasn't meant to be taken literally by the community/reader, then you're saying we know what the author originally intended.

I never mentioned the author.

250 tokens to anyone else who can explain the difference between the author and what the community/reader as intended to take it as.

In most cases the authors were scribes and editors setting down oral tradition, albeit often with a theological and artful twist

.

So....you ARE saying what the author/scribes/editors INTENDED for their readers to believe. Feeling the cognitive dissonance?

The modern sense of authorship didn't exist, inhere, or apply. I am astounded that you would persist in this series of misundersgandings and use them as a basis to attack me personally. Can we finally get past it now?

I attacked you personally? Really. No, we cannot get past it now, because you blatantly contradicting yourself. If the reader/community was "never intended" to take it literally, that means the author didn't intend for them to take it literally. And either way, you don't know for a fact what the community was intended to take it as. I have no idea how anyone can say that you're not mentioning the author's intentions, yet you know for a FACT that the intended readership wasn't intended to read it a certain way. 250 tokens to anyone else who can explain this acceptably how you're not mentioning the author's intent, but just saying what the intended reader was intended to take it as. Doesn't work.

BTW, if you return and say that well then the community took it literally, I would remind you that fact and opinion, literal and figurative, historical and mythic, and scientific and imiganitive are distinctions that didn't exist.

Right....and that has nothing to do with what the intended audience was intended to take it as, or what they did.

It's liek when native americans talk about "Cayote" etc. It's not real, except figuratively and interpretively. What matters is the meaning.

Care to back that assertion?

Once again, it was mythic-history, not fact, not fable - a synthesized jumble of event-meaning that characterized the premodern. That's OK, I envy them; the modern explosion of this has come at a cost. But failure to see it leads to misreadings. I've said this several times in different ways. You're manifesting the defining fundamentalist error of holding up premodern literalness while not realizing that literalness divorced from mythic meaning is itself a modern invention!! That's the whole point.

Not at all, it's not a modern invention whatsoever, that's a dishonest statement, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it's been viewed as literal since as far back as we have writings for.

Hans Frei, in inventing narrative theology, worked in this area and is worth reading about. Bultmann did too, but with a less siopohisticated and scripture-serving or orthodox agenda.

You seem to have it backwards. The notion that it was never meant to be taken literally didn't seem to start getting written about until the very late 1800s to 1900s. Thus, it's a completely modern idea that Genesis was not intended to be taken as anything but a "narrative Theology" rather than history.

Because I am not making a specific narrow point that can be suported with a link

,

If you cannot link to your argument, you have a problem no matter your excuse.

but rather a broad summary point that represents a broad consensus. A library is required, a link or two won't cut it. But at a simple popular level, Marcus Borg, Karen Armstong, and Peter Gomes have written well about it.

Karen Armstrong for one has PLENTY of dissent, hardly from Theist camps alone. Marcus Borg as well. So does Peter Gomes. I understand you limit your discussion to those who agree with them in acadamaia, but if you don't want to discuss the dissent against their ideas, oh well.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/Hugh_Fi ... coherence/

Please don't tell me that Newenglishreview is a Theist source, if you're going to just throw out counter sources, so be it. I should make a thread on this subject alone.

I think NT Wright, for all his orthodoxy, speaks about it well.

I'd show you plenty of opinions that say N.T. Wright and others are wrong such as:

http://onceuponacross.blogspot.com/2010 ... wrong.html

But for someone who talks about "narrow views" I doubt you'd even consider what these sources would have to say.

I mean, EVERYBODY in mainstream chrsitian scholarship does. To summarize it requires a book, and forum rules can't expect me to write a book and oublish here for free. This is an internet forum, not a university or a conference. We should maybe get real about expectations.

You are expected to back up your claims with sources and not just name dropping, if you refuse to do so, you are in violation.

That is a false move,

This is not the first time you've implied it's a "wrong move" to get someone to back their claims.

and apparently a favorite if yours. Let's imagine that I say that "Jews are great. AT least there is a consensus that they are as good and human as everybody else." Then Adolg Hitler says to me, :care to back that assertion?" Well, I'm fallbergasted.

Godwin's Law strikes again. Let the reader note, we are now comparing backing one's assertion on historical criticism of matter of fact statements such as how the early audiences were intended to read the Bible to Adol(f) Hitler questioning someone's comments about Jews. The despart-o-meter is going cazy.

I find it outside the bounds of civilization that would even ask.

Your repeat appeal to "civilization" is getting old and is meaningless. If "civilization" is about trying to squash any dissent to mainstream opinion without actually discussing it, then maybe it's time for a better and more civilized civilization in terms of acadamia. So are you saying all literalists are attackers on civilization? I'd say that's quite uncivil. Define "civilization". I think that's not the first time I asked.

So I refer one to teh broad consensus, and throw in some details for readers edification and pleasure.

Once again, I say that referring to the concensus is but one aspect, you must actually DISCUSS the reasons why the concensus holds this view. 20th century concensus does not mean they are automatically correct over what the 17th and 18th century concensuses were.

Well Adolf says, "it's all opinion and guesswork. you have to prove it scientifically, gimme a book.

More Godwin's law. In addition to calling dissenter against mainstream scholarly opinion "attackers on civilization", we are now compared to Hitler questioning whether Jews are decent people. Let the reader note!

But I'll dismiss it anyway and I'll misquote, misrepresent and attack;

Where did I misquote, misrepresent, and attack? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You're the one saying that there's a difference between author's intent and what the reader was intended to read it as. Who's the one misquoting, misrepresenting and attacking here? (Hint: You.)

I'll dismiss your consensus out of hand and out forward a bunch of illogic and psuedo science in its place."

If you're not willing to discuss alternative scientific discussion, you're avoiding the debate aspect. It's one thing to attack a source, it's another thing to attack the actual ideas behind the source. As for "illogic", you have yet to prove anything I've said is actually illogical, if anything your Hitler comparisons are the tip of the iceberg on your illogic

I find your attack on a broad modern consensus, taught at every non-fundamentalist seminary, assumed as a foundation of all scholarship, an article of faith in the academy and professional associations, to be analogous. It is an attack on civilization, profoundly wrong, and not to be accorded respect from the get go. There are endless details to occupy us in legitimate debate, but the historicity of genesis 1 and 2 is not among them. And hiding behind your interpretation of forum rules as requiring evidence is a smokescreen.

Oh, also, I never referred to authorial intent.

500 tokens to anyone else who can back you on that.
[/ quote]
Argument from popularity.
1000 tokens to anyone who steps in and admits that they understand me.

You are calling me a liar, uncivil, and lying to do so.

Talk about putting words in mouths, what I may insinuate is not what I call you. And I could say the same thing for you what you're saying about me technically.


Indeed, you are making repeatedl unsubstantiated claims.
Last time: I never referred to authorial intent, and I have clarified this point repeaptedly.

Wrong. Repeated unsubstantiated claim. Repeated musinderstanding.

Anyone can go back and read what you said at first . "It was never meant to be taken literally" Also, it's hard to misunderstand the difference between what the author intended and what was intended for the reader. There's really not much difference. I'd say this is like your claim about how hard it is to type out fundamentalist, easily seen through smoke. If you say that the audience wasn't intended to take it literally, then you're making a statement about the author. End of story. Sorry if you don't like it, that's what's what.

However, if the writers were more scribes and editors than authors in the modern sense, participants in the oral tradition and mythic community, then one could say that there intent was never for it to be taken literally. But this is a far cry from authorial intent in the modern sense.

When even Sailingcyclops calls you out on it, maybe you should consider dropping the act?

Well, then he got it wrong too. Two mistaen people constitutes evidence?
And kindly drop the incivility.

I care about how a culture used it, then and now. It was mythic in a time when the modern distinction between myth and history wasn't in place, when history wasn't a science and science didn't exist. Google higher criticism.

I have discussed higher criticism many times on this board. You are now going back to saying that you knew what the original author's intent was as we see below. If you're calling it "mythic" in the sense that they intended it to be a myth and not history because they had no "distinction between myth and history", are you not ultimately saying that it was intended to be read as a myth?

That doesn't follow. They lived within a mythic culture, with a mythic mindset. They didn't have the consciousness and objective apartness to rise to the level of intent beyond an interpretive gloss, which way to read the myth; literal or niot never entered thier minds. That's the whole point. (It'd be more fruitful to pay attention to how the jewish/hebrew/israeli culture did it's thing compared to other ancient mythic communities rather to waste time on these anachronstic and discredited insistence that we inpute modern literalism to premodern people). They simply reflected their time, culture and mindset. This doesn't constitue intent in any meaningful contemporary sense of the word. Your repeated failure to ascknowledge the premodern culture and mind, and the role of mythic literature in it, and specifically the subgenre known as covenant history, has you fall into the anachronistic trap of considering authorial intent viz. literalism. This is a flagrant error.

The people I reference as real vs. fictive reflect the scholarly consensus in the miastream.

Okay, modern scholarly concensus does not equate to matter of fact truth. You need to phrase it as such or be willing to back your assertions with the actual arguments that prove your assertions. Repeatedly telling someone to go to the library and that you "Don't do lame links" is not the way to build credibility or prove your case.

Discussed above.
And note in my last post I acknowledged that consensus is not the same as settled truth, but it sure gets close and represents the beast we have as a function of civilization. So the burden of proof is on those who would dismiss and demean it.

"No way around it." If that's blatant, you're right! I didn't make it up. Do you really want to take this thread in the direction of "was Noah real"?

I really don't remember saying you made it up or that thew scholarship on the matter doesn't exist. But it seems you absolutely do NOT want to discuss what this concensus says to prove the claim. At best, you can say that the scholarly concensus says so. But to phrase it as such that it's true because of such does not compute. There is no way of knowing that they did not intend the "magic parts" to not be taken literally as truth.

I think I've established that this is a category error, a hermeneutical error, and a misreading. It's like asking why the car doesn't fly.
the magic parts are to be taken mythically as truth. I don't see the intellectual, religious or moral problem with that. in fact, I think it frees the bible to say what it says and to live here among us in 2012. Literalism kills it, at least among serious and thinking people. Even Schleiermacher got that when having to deal with religions "cultured despisers" And 150 years later the Narrative theologians critiqued him and said, borrowing from Wittgenstein, that relifion is only meaningful and graspable as a grammar within it's own linguistic community. Literalism was not the point 2-3 thousand years ago, and it's DOA now..

Whether they are true or not. As others have discussed elsewhere, that I even agree with, this mentality that it was "never intended" in the first place seems to be a .....(drum roll) COP OUT that defies virtually ALL the early authorship.

So you've said.

It's not like a major concensus on an issue has even been wrong before either. There is no evidence, none, that I am aware of at least, perhaps you could give some...oh wait, you don't do "dumb links", anyways, there's NO evidence and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. It seems none of the early Midrashists indicated any objection to the idea that these "magic stories" were meant to be taken literally.

They were premoderns right? There you have it; they didn't make the distinction.
Up until after piers the plowman and pilgrims progress, with modernity, no one really did. Not even the greeks.

Therefore, you must admit that you are simply stating what "modern concensus" thinks, but you cannot just say "here's what the concensus says" as if that is a substitute for discussing what they say for the sake of debate. Otherwise, why debate anything? This would be "Let's bash on literalists" board instead, with the rule for backing claims to be thrown out.

See above re: broad point, broad consensus, unweildy amount of material and poular summaries.

I leave the verse by verse adjudication of the text to the experts.

Define "experts"

Professional scholars with Ph. D.'s, employed by respected mainstream institutions who publish in respected mainstream and are members of the american academy of religion or the society of biblical literature or their global equivalents.

and why their opinions on the matter are truth.

Stop saying truth. They are simply more credible, and when in numbers, when broad consensus is reached, they shift the burden to deniers and represent a triumph of civilization against the forces of darkness.

[ quote] If you don't want to,

I just did.

I will suggest again, you find another board where you don't have this pesky rule to discuss the sources and claims behind your assertions.

Perhas you should find another board where attacks on civilzation from the fringe are encouraged. The internet is full of them.
Better yet, how about we drop the personal recommendations. It has to be outside the forum rules you keep referencing, which is itself aginst forum rules when done in a post by non-mods.

My own understanding is in broad outline and reflects an education that ended 25 years ago this spring, and with it a fading memory.

Good for you.

Why thank you!

I suppose you think that's a substitute for backing your assertions. I had this same problem with this PH.D student on Religiousforums, didn't want to back his claims on a similar issue and got hostile when pressed for it, I reported him on it, he's been less willing to avoid discussing the "expert opinion" as if it's done and done since.

The syntax of that sentence renders it incoherent.

But see the analogy above about Hitler (or substitute bin laden, glenn beck, etc). Some people you just can't reason with and have to appeal to civilization, which is not a logical fallacy but rather a moral appeal.

It's not rank opinion and guesswork as you imply;

Sure it is.

No it isn't.
Tag, your it.

it's a scholarly consensus,

Ah, that makes it perfect and undisputed without any need to discuss why,

I never said that. I said otherwise actually.

if you bother going against the concensus, your opinion is invalid no matter what, game over, that's it.

No. But the standards of scholarship will have to be high. You could start by uing the very best of postmodern postliberal thought. In christianity this would include hauerwas, milbank, and frei. I haven't seen this from you, only a bunch of discredited modern corruptions of premodern notions, per fundamentalism by definition. If you could summarize your argument against the modern consensus in a paragraph I'd read it carefully.

I guess this board should have a rule that says "If there is a scholarly conensus on a matter, there is no need to discuss it".

I don't agree with that as it would shut down debate. But it could have a rule that if somethign is cnsidered to be a broad consensus that could fill a library (e.g. genesis 1-2 is metaphorical, the holocaust happened, the earth is flat) that one needn't provide a detailed defense of that and can merely reference it unless one's opponent ass to focus on a narrow segment of it.
FWIW I';ve been here a while and we all have different stles, some argue with endless reference to external links etc, ohers don't. Persoanlly, I get no fun and have no time to pull down the books lookign for factioids, so I debate from memory. No mod had ever criticized me for it. I consider your demands to be simple bullying, a kind of methodological fascism.

however imperfect and evolving within legitimate and credible scholarly communities (from which I exclude both of us).

If you exclude my opinion because I don't have a degree, that's your problem, not mine. And I would say that's not too good for your credibility, just saying.

I exclude us from a community because neither of us are professionals. I do not exclude your opinion because you don't have a degree. Mine's nelry useless as it's 25 years old and I foget 90% of it 9as a recent perusal of some notebooks while packing for a move made abundantly clear). I dismiss your opinion early on and often because you seem to lack a grasp on some basic stuff, even as you have a lot of material at your fingertips and have clearly studied long and hard on your own (which I respect).

To reduce this serious work to mere opinion is an attack upon the notion of civilization. Shall we equate glenn beck and jaroslav pelikan next?

What is this "civilization" concept you keep bringing up? So, next rule for the board, if you attack the scholarly concensus or dare QUESTION it, you are "attacking civilization".

I have a theory that fundamentalisms, fringe ideas, and conspiracy theories are an attack on civilization and not to be accorded equal respect as a sap to formal niceties.

100 tokens to anyone else who can back this assertion.

Maybe it's time to let that little bit of theater go.

[/quote] Sounds pretty desperate. [/quote]
I rest my case.

Personally I disagree with a great deal of scholars like Pelikan, as well as Metzger and modern ones like Wallace. Do I need a degree to do so?

No of course not, who said so? Many scholars disagree with them, and are free by definiton to do so. Nobody says you have to be a liberal. But the world is round after all. And premoderns inhabited a mythic world where history and meaning comingled unencumbered by moder notions of literality. Some things are pretty settled, like the mythic structure, origins, and function of genesis 1-2 for example, and the wrongheadedness of an evidentiary scientific model applied to ancient scriptures, either to defend or detract.Although a serious and scholarly attack upon that, which gains momentum and creates a movement distinct from rank expressions of various fundamentalisms, is within the range of the possible. Milbank seems to be there for example.

It's a very common "Christian" tactic among liberals and conservatives to try to squash the debate by acting as if they somehow cannot be argued against or that you need a 4 year Theology degree to do so.

Well, they're wrong. But it does make it easier to at least be up to date with the best thinking and the rare consensus, as well as the standards for undermining richly devreoped arguments and broad threads if thought.

Such people might consider other hobbies than going on boards where the object is to actually discuss their assertions.

Indeed, you may be right. I've wanted to stop being here from the second day I was here because it's so much like amateur hour and the level of discourse is often so low. BUT, it's better than most, some folks are great, I enjoy it, and there's always the minsitry of trying to help the cinfused and save a few good people from left or right extremisms. Not that it's any of your business.
Maybe you'd like a forum where no one has a degree? Maybe you'd be elected king? Nah, it's wrong of me to ask. See?

And anyway, you offer only fringe contrarian unsupported unpublished unreviewed opinion. Is that better some how?

If only I had a dollar for every time someone wanted to squash debate because someone holds a position that few else hold as if there's no need to actually discuss it. Appeal to authority at its worst.

Actually, I LOVE edgy ideas. Bring then on, no apologist for anodyne opinion here.
But if I had a dollar for every time a fundamentalist or other fringer tired to muscle his or her untenable position on to the table of legitimate scholarhsip, I'd be rich.

No I'm not.
As stated above.

100 tokens to anyone who can prove this, because you're basically contradicting yourself with your appeals to authority as if they are the golden bar for truth.

Oh god, not again.

However, I am saying that to claim that genesis 1 and 2 and other fantastical accounts are historic rather than mythic is so far outside of the mainstream serious religious consensus as to be profoundly suspect and to represent a veritable attack on civilization, the darkness at the fringe, fanaticism, not to be engaged seriously nor accorded respect, only to be marginalized, disembowled, and defeated. It is on the short list notions that are truly cognitio non grata.

I don't really care,

I think the record shows otherwise.

if you're going to try to denounce anyone's opinion and argument simply because it's "fringe", and refuse to back your own claims while you're at it,

That's the nice thing about fringe arguments; we get to do that.

I again suggest you mind consider finding a board where you need not actually debate or back your assertions with the actual links.

This is getting old.
How about you become a moderator first? And then impose your ideas on everyone else second? Then we'll talk.

If it was so easy to brush off people's fringe opinions by calling them fringe, there'd be no need for debate, it would be called "Discuss mainstream opinion" not "debate".

I prefer discuss and debate non-fringe opinion because to engage clear fringe opinion (fundamentalism, hate, conspriacy theory etc) as an equal is to dilute civilization.
BTW, I back up my opinions, just not in the same manner as you do. Am I required to mirror your style? My friend McColloc and I rarely debate because we have different styles. No biggee.

However, as I've shown the Talmud discusses the 900 generations before Adam. It's not a new opinion. And Pre-adamite theory was quite common in the 1700s-1800s. So if you don't want to discuss my views, that's not my problem. My argument stands. If you don't like it, oh well. It's your credibility.

If I don't want to discuss that, it's only due to lack of interest in that specific topic. But if I did, I'd want to see how and why it should make a resurgence in the 21st century with reference to the best of contemporary thought as a backdrop. But I wouldn't rule it out out of hand, I don't know anything about it.

BTW, why do you put quotes around certain of my phrases? To borrow a page from your book, is that an implied ad hominem?

Why don't you explain how that would be ad hominem exactly.

It reads like sarcastic dismissal. Seems pretty clear.

We agree. It sure is.

and irrelevant.

Natch.
OK I'm bored and busy. Snipping the next parts.

And are you now a reader of minds and character? Escape hatch? Rather, "escape hatch"?

There's a whole thread on this on the science board. The idea that the Authors never intended it to be literal, is something many of us here seem to agree is a recent "cop out".

I know nothing of science sadly. So I rarely enter that forum. But I have little idea of what authorial intent has to do with science except maybe as psychology or cognition. But I'll take a look. Do you have the link? I suspect the agreement is between fundamentalists and and athiests who share a modern reductionistic allegience to non-religious and anachronistic notions of evidence and other epistemological concerns. Karen Armstrong summarizes this error well in her popular and easy book A Case for God.

? Who died and made them modern men of modern mindset and knowledge? I'm sure there were tons of things they didn't know or understand that we do.

Ummm, what does that have to do with what Jesus and Paul said? You'd have to argue that they didn't intend to say Adam and Abel were real people with your argument. The "scholarly concensus" may in fact be sweeping over this little fact or perhaps they feel that Jesus and Paul were not in on the memo.

No, I assume they were premoderns who participated in mythic history. I don't think they insisted upon modern literalism or fiction. It never entered thier minds. So what/ How is this relevant or decisive or probitive? Your misunderstanding of premodern mythic man is really undermining your understanding here, over and over.

It could also mean that they were in on it. J and P could have had (did have) a premodern mythic-history mindset themselves. Stands to reason.

Ah, a Conspiracy Theorist.

Hardly.

Haven't you called me that before?

Not that I recall. I did mention conspiracy theories, but never called you that IIRC.

I suppose Jesus and Paul could have been "in on it", but that's quite a "Fringe" position I'd say.

It seems legitimate to wonder the extent to which J and P were utterly premodern in mindset, and the extent to which Jesus (as probably illiterate but God after all) and Paul (as Hellenized) had an awareness of self-conscious reason apart from myth, but spoke in mythic terms. I don't have the expertise to know, but it's a point to ponder, not a conspiracy theory. Scates, aristotle, and plato all seemed to speak in rational and mythic terms. And I read somewhere that elite Romans seemed to know that the gods were a cult that was valuable, but not factually real. So around that time it's a jumble. If referencing this in an open minded way as a possibility is a cospiracy theory than I'm at a loss for words. Credibility indeed. I have to wonder if you're serious.

OR they could have been speaking the language of the time, reaching people where they were at, or if you like, pandering. It was all about stories and inherited tradition, language, tropes, memes, magic.

Uh huh. More fringe positions.

Here your ignorance is showing. This is actually mainstream.

Can you find me a single link to back this concept or will you admit that this is a "Fringe" position that the 'scholarly concensus" kinda seemed to forget to mention?

I wouldn't know where to begin. Try the works of mytholgists like eliade, or demythologists like bultmann, or some of frei's work on biblical narrative, or wittgenstein on religious language games, or gadamer and ricoeur on hermeneutics, or marleau-ponty or marcel on phenomenoloigy, or paul holmer or dz philips on religoius grammar and meaning. Endless links await.

I assume that neither J nor P was crazy or a liar,

Assuming there was a P, I agree. {/quote]
I'm referring to Jesus and Paul, not the 4 source theory. You qiestion Paul's existence? That would be fringe to an unprecedented degree.

so I conclude they were participating in the mindset, language, and culture of their time and place, and doing so unselfconsciously and with little awareness of an alternative.

Okay, so that could possibly mean that they were in fact writing what they considered a literal truth, even within poetry.

Well sure, but at a time when the distinction wasn't made. You're forcing a modern mindset onto them. Again, this is a very big mistake.

I'd ask you to back your assertion that they were totally being "mythical" in the sense of not being literal or historical but conveying a mystical/Theological message, but that would probably result in a dead end as before. [/qote]
My back up is that they were premodern. By definition they were histotic-mythic in their thought framework. I'm confdient that when they said today is Thursday they were being literal. But that is jejune. But when engaging scripture and the magic stuff, they were mythic-historic. Which is all good, I wish we were so lucky. The mormons seem to want to bring it back. It's nice, fun, but untenable. However, Milbank's work intrigues me.

Let me get this straight: you're suggesting the bible is literal because J and P, people who are also known only as characters in the very same biblical narrative, when read a certain way, possibly misread, seemed to think it so? Are you relying upon that obviously circular argument?

I fail to see why this is a circular argument, and why the alternative that it wasn't intended to be literal isn't. So yes, I am suggesting that J and the potential "P" never intended it to be anything BUT literal history, and I don't think its any more circular than the idea that they were intending it to be mythical.

I rest my case.

Is this like your assertion that you used the word "Fundy" merely to save time?

I spoke truth. Are you calling me a liar? Answer yes or no. In public. Now please.

That's as far as I went with it (my major was not bible) and I've maybe read the bible for 10 minutes in the intervening quarter century (I read what others say about it, scholars, exegetes, sages; I'm a consumer in this regard).

Wait, you've only read the Bible for 10 minutes? Wow, and here you are trying to

write people off whose opinion doesn't involve having a 4 year degree, and you've spent less than 10 minutes reading the actual text?

I've spent hundreds of hours with the actual text. But not in the past 25 years. I considered lectio dvina but preferred musica divina and eros divina. So I debate from menmory and secondary expert sources. Got a problem with that?
And I'm not debating bible here anyway but rather the premodern mind, myth, and hermeneutics.

Clearly it's debate. Sorry if I don't mirror your every stylistic whim.



.

I'm sorry if your fingers hurt by typing fundamentalists. I suggest you practice typing it 100 times in a row and you'll build up the specific coordination to make it less tiring to type it out.

Again with the suggestions.
Howabout you refer to me and mine as liberaltruthholders. That's my preferred moniker. Get typing.

The literal intent vs. science issue is an albatross, for reasons I expressed in a earlier post.

[quote[ Not really, the ones saying that it was not intended to be literal, as others have also suggested, appears to be a modern "cop out" for those who don't want to debate the science issues with Genesis.

There are no "science issues" within Genesis.

It simply misses the point.

No, the "cop out" of saying it was never intended to be literal misses the point.

"Care to back up that assertion?"

[revelationtestament]

There are not different orders of creation. The first account is the order of creation. It actually ends with Gen 2:4 where God says these are the generations of the earth when God created it. In other words God is telling us the "days" of creation are actually generations. And prophetic generations are very long periods of time, as Jesus revealed when He said He would return in this generation.

Next God begins to give a spiritual account of the creation - no time periods are alluded to. Note that God said that He made every plant BEFORE it was in the earth, and that there had been no rain yet and no man to till the earth. He is describing a spiritual creation here. That is why the tree of life appears here. Here God is beginning His spiritual teaching - showing that Jesus is the tree of Life.

[TheJackelantern]

Yeah, the level of honesty you use here is terrible, and really tells me that you really aren't a literalist when it come to "Thou shall not lie".

Those threats are meaningless to someone like me, or someone who sees through the BS.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid the personal attacks and the profanity.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

Sorry for the profanity, and I don't think I made a personal attack there. I believe I addressed the stuff he posted as crap.. But I do think he's using intentional dishonest discourse here. :/ But, I do need to take a nicer tone in my debates. :/

here are not different orders of creation. The first account is the order of creation. It actually ends with Gen 2:4 where God says these are the generations of the earth when God created it. In other words God is telling us the "days" of creation are actually generations. And prophetic generations are very long periods of time, as Jesus revealed when He said He would return in this generation.

Days or generations are not really relevant, but I will go over this later when I get some time to But the main problem is that argument is largely based on a game of semantics about the terms "formed", and "made".. This in which is largely exploited to try and rationalize the differences.. So till later will I respond

[revelationtestament]

"Days or generations are not really relevant"
I think most readers will find they are. Just like God told the Hebrews they would wander in the desert for 40 days. He then said I have given you a day for a year... in other words they would be wandering for 40 years.
So .... highly relevant. Also highly relevant since that makes Gen 1 a very concise history of how God made the earth which conforms perfectly with science. First the earth was without form. Then as the earth began to form out of the primordial solar system, there came to be light. Then when the earth began to rotate, the night was divided from the day. The first life.. plants... science again says yes. The first earth life was in the sea....science says yes. Next land animals... last man. Science agrees.

"But the main problem is that argument is largely based on a game of semantics about the terms "formed", and "made".. This in which is largely exploited to try and rationalize the differences.."
I assume you are talking about Gen 2 now. I'm not rationalizing at all. I'm explaining how Gen 2 is different that Gen 1. Gen 1 is a concise history of the physical creation over the 6 generations it took to create it. Gen 2 is no such thing. Nothing about the formation of the earth really... or about the sea creatures or days etc. God is telling us that he created plants before he put them in the earth. Before there was rain or man. He had also already done so with man too. That is why God tells Jeremiah... before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and ordained thee a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah spiritually existed with God before He even formed the earth.... just like the rest of us.

[Slopeshoulder]

There are not different orders of creation. The first account is the order of creation. It actually ends with Gen 2:4 where God says these are the generations of the earth when God created it. In other words God is telling us the "days" of creation are actually generations. And prophetic generations are very long periods of time, as Jesus revealed when He said He would return in this generation.

Next God begins to give a spiritual account of the creation - no time periods are alluded to. Note that God said that He made every plant BEFORE it was in the earth, and that there had been no rain yet and no man to till the earth. He is describing a spiritual creation here. That is why the tree of life appears here. Here God is beginning His spiritual teaching - showing that Jesus is the tree of Life.

This is an interesting narrative angle, but with no basis in fact as it based on circular arguments and magical thinking. It's also at odds with all non-fundamentalist thought. As fantasy, it admirably imaginative and organized, and may even have theological merit possibly. But as a serious reading of jewish and christian texts viz. history, it falls flat and is little better than the idea that santa covers the whole world in one night with flying reindeer and toys made by elves. We do our religion a disservice when we reduce it to childish pablum; it deserves better.

Welcome to the forum!

[Slopeshoulder]

"Days or generations are not really relevant"
I think most readers will find they are.

You might find yourself surprised.

Just like God told the Hebrews they would wander in the desert for 40 days. He then said I have given you a day for a year... in other words they would be wandering for 40 years.
So .... highly relevant.

did you ever think that this symmetry is a creation of the editors/authors?
it's not historically true, it's a mythic history. i'd be more interested in what the thematic meaning of this choice was to them and what among that meanng might still resonate for us today.

Also highly relevant since that makes Gen 1 a very concise history

It's not a history, it's a creation myth.

of how God made the earth which conforms perfectly with science.

I'll wager you'll find yourself challenged on that claim. by scientists for example. Then by credible theologians and exegetes. Then by educated people of good faith who take modernity and reason seriously.

That is why God tells Jeremiah... before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and ordained thee a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah spiritually existed with God before He even formed the earth.... just like the rest of us.

Are you coming at this as a Platonist (forms exist in God's mind) or as a Mormon (we have pre-existence) or perhaps as a Calvinist (God knows what you will be)?

[revelationtestament]

"This is an interesting narrative angle, but with no basis in fact as it based on circular arguments and magical thinking. "
Care to give an example of the "circular" argument?

"It's also at odds with all non-fundamentalist thought."
True....and I don't care. I'm at odds with both fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist thought all the time. This is not a valid argument...It is merely saying the majority must be right... Like the church majority telling the one poor little Galileo he was wrong... care to take the majority side in that argument? ha ha

"As fantasy, it admirably imaginative and organized, and may even have theological merit possibly. But as a serious reading of jewish and christian texts viz. history_
Again I'm not interested in the serious scholarly interpretations... I know them and they are very often wrong ... all over the place. So why should I limit interpretation to them? You say it may have theological merit... you have no idea how short-sighted this statement is. Let us take the tree of life. If man eats of the tree of life he lives forever. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "I am the vine tree, and ye are the branches..." So how does one live forever? By eating of the tree of life ie believing on Christ and being grafted into His branches. The tree of life is one of Gods plain similitudes that probably 99.99999% of Christianity doesn't get.

[revelationtestament]

Quote:
Also highly relevant since that makes Gen 1 a very concise history

"It's not a history, it's a creation myth."
Sir, that is not an argument. It is a conclusion based on preconceived notions you have obviously formed over the years. I showed how it was an accurate yet very concise explanation of the creation of the earth which conforms to science yet all you had to say is that some may argue with it. You completely failed to show how it does not conform to the order of creation currently given by essentially 100% of all scientists.

Just like God told the Hebrews they would wander in the desert for 40 days. He then said I have given you a day for a year... in other words they would be wandering for 40 years.
So .... highly relevant.

"did you ever think that this symmetry is a creation of the editors/authors?"
Sure. Heard that one. But have you ever undertaken a serious reading of the Bible to see how the days as years is used over and over and over again?

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah [Anointed one] the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. And after threescore (60) and two weeks shall Messiah be cutoff, but not for himself: and the people of the prince [Rome] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [Titus destroyed the temple]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [again a flood being the workings of Satan in men], and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week [3 1/2 days or years] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation [the END], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. [The last sentence has also been interpreted as: "and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." Oxford Annotated Bible] Daniel 9:24-7.

I will start by saying Rome is the abomination which maketh desolate. The Roman Church is the Great Harlot and Mother of Abominations of the Earth. At the decreed end the desolator will receive the judgments of Revelation 18. Now let us determine when the 70 weeks start. After Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, the Hebrews returned to Jerusalem in two main migrations, but Daniel stayed in the capitol of the Persians. The first migration under Zerubbabel had commission to rebuild the Temple [known as the Temple of Zerubbabel]. The commission came through king Cyrus of Persia in his first year to build an house at Jerusalem to the LORD God. Cyrus the king brought the vessels of gold and silver king Nebuchadnezzar had taken, and gave them to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah (Zerubbabel), to be taken to Jerusalem. Ezra 1. Zerubbabel led forth the families listed in Ezra 2 to Judah. By the seventh month the people were in their cities, and gathered in Jerusalem where Zerubbabel directed them first in building an altar. Then according to the grant of Cyrus king of Persia, they began collecting wood and materials to rebuild the Temple. Ezra 3. Apparently the rebuilding effort stopped or slowed during the eight year reign of Cambyses. In the sixth month of the second year of Darius the spirit of the LORD was stirred in Zerubbabel through the words of Haggai, to finish the Temple. Apparently, by this time Zerubbabel was recognized as governor of Judah. Haggai 1. The Temple was finished under Darius, king of Persia (who renewed the decree of Cyrus or possibly Darius II), on the third day of the month Adar in the sixth year of Darius. Ezra 6. The second migration returned under Ezra, the scribe, who left Babylon the first day of the first month in the seventh year of king Artaxerxes, who ruled after Darius I, and therefore after Daniel's account. Ezra 7:7-9. They were commissioned by the LORD and king Artaxerxes to beautify the Temple by a letter found in Ezra 7.

However, in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, Nehemiah learned of the troublous times of his people: "The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire." Nehemiah 1:1-3. King Artaxerxes saw his troubled countenance, and Nehemiah told him it was because Jerusalem lay waste, and the gates lay burnt. So the king prepared a letter to the keeper of his forest to cut timber for the rebuilding, and sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:1-8. When he arrived, he found the city in a state of waste. He told the people what God had put in his heart to do, and called the people to rebuild. Nehemiah 2:17-8. But these were troublous times. When the Arabians, the Ammonites, the Ashdodites, and Tobiah, and Sanballat heard of the rebuilding, they came to fight against Jerusalem, so Nehemiah "...set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows." Nehemiah 4:7,8,13. "So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of the month Elul, in fifty and two days." Nehemiah 6:15. "Now the city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded." Nehemiah 7:4.

Cyrus II (the Great) reigned from 549-530 B.C.; Cambyses II from 530-522 B.C.; Darius from 522-486 B.C.; and Xerxes from 486-465 B.C. The commandment to rebuild the walls and the city was to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes I ruled from 465 B.C. to 424 B.C.[1] His twentieth year was 445 B.C. This is about when Old Testament prophecy stopped. This is the beginning of the seventy weeks, which commence with seven weeks (7 x 7 = 49 days/years) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (when the walls are rebuilt) unto the Messiah, which brings us to 396 B.C. After the second period of threescore and two weeks the Messiah is cut off. Sixty two weeks equals 434 days or prophetic years, which brings us to 38 Anno Domini (according to Roman dating). After His ascension our Lord continued to periodically speak to His apostles, and personally called Paul as a disciple. He then was cut off for awhile, and the Holy Spirit did His work. So the third and last period of the seventy weeks is not consecutive. "Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that is was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel." Zechariah 11:9-14.

The third period is a period of only one week (7 years) when he shall confirm the covenant with many. This is a prophecy of the seven year Jewish war beginning under the reign of Nero. One might say He began to confirm the covenant in Rome in the autumn of 63 A.D. or 64 A.D., when many Christians were called to confirm their covenants with our Lord, and were sacrificed under Nero who chose to blame the Christians for the great fire in Rome. A tradition places the sacrifice of Peter in 67 A.D., rather than 64 A.D. However, this prophecy was directed specifically to the Jews, some of whom had accepted Jesus Christ (Acts 11,12). In the Holy Land the Jewish war did not start until approximately August 15, 66 A.D., when Antonia was attacked, although some argue that it began with the unrest in Jerusalem and its surroundings in approximately May, 66. For the dates concerning the Jewish war I rely on the history of Josephus, the Jewish historian to the Romans. His history uses Macedonian (Greek) names for the months of the year which seem to correspond best with an accurate date if imposed upon the Roman months of the year. If, alternatively the Macedonian name is imposed on the Tyrian system or on the luni-solar calender, the date may vary up to one half month from the date I use herein (Roman). In the spring of the 13th year of Nero, 67 A.D., Vespasian, who is the seventh crown of the great red dragon, was sent to subdue the Hebrews. He began by taking cities and fortresses in Galilee: Jotapata, Japha, Garizim, Tarichaeae, and Gamala. After the death of Nero, Vespasian left his invasion of Judaea in 69 A.D., and returned to defeat Vitellius and become emperor. He then sent his son, Titus.

In the midst of the week, that is in the fourth or middle year, He causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease. The fourth year of the war would be August 15, 69 A.D., to August 14, 70 A.D. According to Josephus, Titus took the outer wall of Jerusalem on May 7, 70. The Temple sacrifice ceased on 17 Panemus, which would correspond with July 17, 70 A.D. Titus burned the Temple on August 10 (10 Lous), 70 A.D. Then the prophesied desolation began. On September 8 (8 Gorpaeus), 70 A.D., Titus took the upper city of Jerusalem. According to Tacitus 600,000 Jews perished. According to Josephus the Romans killed 1,197,000 Jews in the siege and the aftermath of revolts. About 97,000 captives were sold as slaves, or died as unwilling gladiators in the Roman games. The city walls were destroyed. The Jewish War continued until the fall of Masada in 73 A.D. [2] So the Hebrews had till 73 A.D., to accept their Messiah. Major revelations stopped, and the canonical books of the New Testament were set. Continuing revelation was through the Holy Spirit which revealed the truthfulness of the gospel to those who earnestly sought. He knowing the Hebrews would not accept their Messiah, has fulfilled His promise to give His light unto the Gentiles in the latter days. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Luke 13:34-5.