大象传媒

After all the effort put into comparing Genesis with the Epic of Gilgamesh, was anyone else underwhelmed by the actual analysis of the Flood itself? I'm thinking particularly of the 'contradictions.'

The reasoning seems to be 'there are two different numbers mentioned, therefore there is a contradiction,' when a fairly straightforward reasoning of the text is that the two numbers refer to different events i.e. the waters rise for 40 days, but it's a further 110 days before the water levels starts to drop. After a month of the level dropping, mountain tops become visible and a further 40 days later, Noah sends out a raven. After a total of 150 days of water abating (300 days after the start of the flood), the water has gone. Noah then waits 10 more weeks for the earth to dry out before departing from the ark.

If there's a convincing reason to believe that there is some sort of numerical contradiction there, Prof. HAyes didn't explain it. Given the chronological detail that we are provided with, and the apparent care with which the author/redactor has presented the information, it seems odd to unnecessarily assume a contradiction.

Similarly with the two animals or seven pairs, that can trivially be explained away by saying that the first instruction was emphasising the importance of bringing animals in in pairs, while the second was majoring on how many pairs of each kind.

As for the distinction between heavy rains and cosmic upheaval, that seemed more than a little forced. Wouldn't rains so heavy that they contribute to the flooding of the earth be considered a part of cosmic upheaval?

She also overstates her case for linguistic differences between the first and second creations stories. Yes, the first is the only one to use 'male' and 'female', however the second is not the only one to use 'adam' - it's a term common to both stories and in fact the firs uses it more than 'male' and 'female' which are only used once.

Jon

I havent read this lecture yet, but your take on it dovetails completely with my understanding of the Prof's performance on the first 3 lectures so far ie lots of speculation presented as proven fact.

OT

Will, I'm not adverse to the suggestion that there are stylistic differences. It's just that the manner in which Prof. Hayes presented the claim seemed rather less than rigorous after all the effort put into other areas. Gender languages seems very inconclusive when one set of words is only used once and the other set is used in both accounts. Additionally, 'male' and 'female' serve different purposes to 'man' and woman, ' so they can't easily be used as evidence of a stylistic change. The first account seems to be stressing that mankind was created with two sexes, both of which are part of mankind. Since 'man' is already being used for mankind, saying that God created both 'man' and 'woman' would be a little ambiguous and could be taken to mean that 'woman' is a different kind of creature, so 'male' and 'female' enable clearer communication. In account two, this point is less important and identifying 'the man' and 'the woman' individually, rather than their sexes generally, becomes more important.

Now it may be that Prof. Hayes has a better justification for saying that there are stylistic differences in the use of gender, but what she presented in the lecture was thoroughly unconvincing.

Regarding the extent of the flood, I wonder if it's useful to look at the chapters that follow. The suggestion form the list of nations and following is that all of mankind, as far as the story of the Bible is concerned, comes from a limited area, so for the flood to do its job, only a relatively small area would have to be flooded. On the other hand, if mountains were being covered, it's hard to see how geographically limited it could be.

I haven't had time to follow the lecture yet but, on the limited question of the extent of the flood, it would seem very clear to me that the writers of the story imagined a flood covering the whole earth. When we look at the conceptual model of the world adduced by Prof Hayes no other explanation is possible. If the earth is flat (making the use of the term global something of an anachronism) then a rising water level sufficient to submerge mountains would, of necessity, have covered the whole of the created landmass. The desire of God to extirpate all living things, not just man, would also require a universal flood with nowhere even for a bird to land.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dear Moderator

If I write something about Prof Hayes's analysis being pretty much a standard contemporary reading of these passages can I follow it with whatever advertisement I choose?

Hi petermorrow,

Uhm, you've been here long enough to know not to expect any consistency in moderation, haven't you? Some of those who spam get away with it, while others who self-advertise here or get moderated. If you want to understand that then the best thing I can do is probably to recommend you take a course in astrology.:(

On snakes

First the idea that one of the purposes behind Genesis 2-3 was the explanation of the biology of snakes seems completely unconvincing. We have aetiological stories about mortality, moral responsibility and self-awareness. Are we then to assume that the epic poets saying:

POET A鈥淗ere, I know a really good story about why snakes shed their skin 鈥� should we work that in?鈥�
POET B鈥淎ye, that one always puzzles people. Be a real selling point if 鈥楪ialgamesh鈥� covers that issue.鈥�
POET A鈥淪hould we explain where birds got their wings?鈥�
POET B 鈥淒on鈥檛 be silly. We want to deal with the big issues in this poem.鈥�

Again with Genesis 2-3.
CURIOUS ISRAELITE: 鈥淢r Prophet? Why do we do evil when we want to do good? Why do humans suffer? Why the battle of the sexes? And while we鈥檙e at it 鈥� how come snakes slither? I mean that last question is the big one obviously. You can take your time on it.鈥�

Snakes turn up in both stories. Why? What was their importance in the ancient world? Why does Gilgamesh 鈥渄eify鈥� snakes 鈥� explaining their seemingly immortal nature? Why does Genesis 3 鈥渄emythologise鈥� snakes 鈥� putting them on their bellies in the dust? Is Genesis 3 making them a symbol of mortality?

So I have to ask 鈥渨hy use a serpent to represent that malevolent force?" Hayes says its all fiction. Well, still 鈥� why choose a snake? So some questions

1) What was the importance of serpents in the Ancient world? Did they have a role in ANE religion? Does anyone know?
2) I know a 5鈥� copper snake was found in a Midianite shrine in the Negev. I think the Canaanites had a fertility goddess that looked like a snake. Beyond this I can鈥檛 find much on Ugaritic mythology and serpents. Has anyone else had more luck? In any case, in this mythology the serpent seems to be a source of life. Is this why Genesis demythologises the serpent? Makes it crawl along on its belly in the dust, identifying it with death?
3) The snake became the emblem of Pharaoh鈥檚 power. Ra the sun god, personified by Pharaoh, was seen at the front of Ra鈥檚 barge and spat fire at his enemies. Is there a political jibe at Egypt in Genesis 2-3? Or is Genesis again concerned to remove the snake from a position where it is worthy of worship?
4) A serpent Apophis conspired to kill Ra, and was considered the chief of his enemies. Apophis lived in the waters of Nun. Each day Apophis would try to oppose the progress of Ra鈥檚 barge 鈥� that is the progress of the Sun across the sky, and the order that Ra brings to the world. Stormy weather was interpreted as a temporary victory by Apophis. If there was a total eclipse was interpreted as Apophis swallowing Ra鈥檚 barge. So is it more likely that the serpent is a representation of chaos? The opponent of order?

Anyhow, this is what I鈥檝e discovered. Can anyone verify my finds, and maybe impose some order on them?

GV

A few other questions

1) Was Adam meant to drive the serpent from the garden?
2) Has 鈥渘akedness鈥� sexual connotations? Or are the connotations existential (alienation before God and each other?) How does this contrast with Enkidu鈥檚 alienation?
3) The sons of Cain develop civilisation, technology and culture. Yet these all perish in the Flood. Is this a critique of human cultural achievement? An attempt to put it in perspective? (In 鈥淧aradise Lost鈥� Satan鈥檚 Angels, rather than riding about on motorcycles and getting into bar-room brawls, create philosophy, culture and architecture to distract from their misery. Is a similar sentiment at work in Genesis?
4) Why is the forbidden thing always a source of temptation.
5) Is the snake the first theologian?

GV

Worth a mention here that Christ repeatedly talks of the OT as "Moses and the Prophets".

Luke 24:27 (New International Version)

27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Further references here;-





Hmmm.

Maybe worth a second look at how solid these "challenges" are to the authorship of Moses. Must give it a little time.


OT

In this lecture Prof Hayes has begun to suggest that Moses was not really the main author of the first five books of the bible.

Because her argument continues into the next lecture I have jumped ahead to try and grasp her whole argument.

And in the next lecture, she makes the following very important admission as an aside. She admits that it is all guesswork and without solid evidence;-

"...It needs to be remembered that the documentary hypothesis is only a hypothesis. An important and a useful one, and I certainly have used it myself. But none of the sources posited by critical scholars has been found independently: we have no copy of J, we have no copy of E, we have no copy of P by itself or D by itself. So these reconstructions are based on guesses. Some of them are excellent, excellent guesses, very well supported by evidence, but some of them are not. Some of the criteria invoked for separating the sources are truly arbitrary, and extraordinarily subjective...."


I also note that she cites at length all the historical scholars who support her main argument but she does not appear to cite and of those who disagree with her, nor the main shortcomings of those scholars' arguments, nor the points where they refute each other.


OT



OT

Similarly, Prof Hayes goes on to speak repeatedly about anachronisms in Genesis, but in the end, this is the only one she actually gives us;-


"Similarly there are some anachronisms that they had to explain. One of the most famous is in Genesis 13:7. It's in the midst of a story about dividing the land between Lot and--at that time his name was Abram, it later becomes Abraham--but between Lot and Abram. And the narrator in telling this story sort of interjects and turns to us, the readers, and says, "The Canaanites and Perrizites were then dwelling in the land." Now what's weird about that sentence? The narrator is speaking to us from a time in which the Canaanites and Perrizites don't live in the land, right? "That's back when the Native Americans lived in Connecticut." Is that writer living at a time when Native Americans are still living in Connecticut or owning Connecticut? No. They're writing from a later point of view. So the narrator breaks and talks to the audience in Genesis 13:7 and says, "That was back in the time when the Canaanites were in the land." When did Moses live? Who lived in the land in the time of Moses? The Canaanites. I know you haven't gotten there yet, but when you get to Deuteronomy you're going to find out he doesn't make it into the land. So he never makes it in there, he never gets in before the Israelites conquer. He dies--the Canaanites are still in possession. So that line was certainly written not by Moses; it was written by someone at a much later time who's looking back and referring to the time when the Canaanites were in the land."


Personally, it doesnt threaten my view of divine scripture to accept that someone other than Moses was responsible for adding this in.


However, I think the more important point is if this is the worst anachronism that Prof Hayes can come up with...well I think this is pretty weak.

I havent looked into this one in depth, but I dont find it difficult to think of several reasons why Moses might have written this himself, the chief one being that he foresaw the time when these two people's would be removed from the land.

And if this is too difficult to accept, just remember that in many places he also foresaw the coming of the Messiah too.

OT

I think there was a lot of editorial work on the Pentateuch, but that the core "traditions" date back to the time of Moses. I don't see that 'anachronisms' do much more than point to editorial work.
In fact, if you move through the Deuteronomistic History, you can see how the start of each book relates back to the end of the previous book. So you don't need anachronisms to show editorial work.

GV

OT


I thought the comparisons with Gilgamesh were helpful - not in terms of literary dependence, but in contrasting the approaches to mortality, sexuality, moral responsibility and such.
And it certainly got me thinking about snakes...
Have you seen anything that has given you any insight into the meaning of the text?
GV

Dang, life has been busier than expected and I'm hoping to catch up tonight. Meantime might it be worth noting that these authors *were* primitive, compared to the common knowledge of today. It makes perfect sense to me that, if the authors of the flood story believed in a flat earth with an expanse of water being held back by a firmament, and an expanse below the ground, the flood story in Genesis follows as a 'good' punishment for mankind. If the world were something like a snowglobe, we have a story that makes a lot of sense.

Well if that's how they pictured the world in the ANE I suppose, phenomenologically, a Catastrophic Local Flood would *appear* like a world wide flood. I don't know if that helps or hinders anyone's thoughts.


GV

Perhaps the most important lecture to date. The key point as I viewed it was the assertion that this text, with a number of contradictions and anachronisms, and clearly written by a number of authors, is a dubious basis for a world believe/faith system (with all that is negative that comes from it).

One key point, and I would welcome comments is, "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us,..."

What a fascinating subject.

GV # 16
I agree with the talking snake matter and start to wonder was it a talking penis.
I don鈥檛 think I would take any reference to editorial issues lightly as it sounds like three major faith systems are based on texts any Tom, Dick or Moses has changed to suit their world view. I remain concerned that the current ills of humankind have such an unreliable source. Thank goodness for the billions of ignorant and gullible who sustain these myths鈥ot.

Kind regards
DK

David Kerr

Thoughtful and insightful comments, showing a deep insight into ancient literature. Your grasp of international conflict and the causes of crime and genocide show something more than familiarity with the scholarly literature. I haven't laughed so much since I read Viz as a 12 year old, and now my faith is in tatters.

Graham Veale

PS You never lived in Glegormley by any chance?

A plea to Will - the ad hominems are out in force here, and perhaps the other thread.
For these threads I might appreciate more moderation. Those who are following the lectures may disagree. But ther is a chance that the discussion could be ruined.

GV

David, Nahum Sarna's take on source criticism is fascinating and I am still reading it. He points out that the Bible has survived for millenia pre-eminently because it is a religious document. This is something which imposes, he says, "both a limitation and an obligation upon the Biblical scholar. He has to recognise the presence of a dimension not accessible to the ordinary norms of investigation. Truth is not exclusively coincident with scientific truth". (I would add, nor with historical truth). He goes on to say "Spiritual insight and sensitivity are as indispensable a scholarly ingredient as a faultless methodology". He states that awareness of the existential human plight is a prerequisite for understanding a text designed to deal with it and applies the analogy of the deficiencies of a learned but tone-deaf music critic.

I agree with him. The study of the Bible if it is to be meaningful can be neither pure science or pure scholarship.

Sarna, however, argues that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that the inspired genius of the Bible is actually in the interweaving of disparate elements. What you see as a weakness and a random or unskilled process, he perceives as a sublime achievement. I agree with him. He says failure to understand this achievement, failure to grasp the nature and impact of the redaction, "is a fact that often escapes recognition by both fundamentalist and scientist and constitutes a serious deficiency in their understanding of the Bible".

Thanks William

You say that "Chris Hayes's account of the documentary hypothesis, here, is pretty standard stuff".

Will, it must be said, that depends on your definition of "standard" of course. The main thrust of what she is teaching regarding authorship of the pentateuch is seriously challenged by many liberal scholars, never mind conservative ones. I have a list of perhaps 20 names over the past century or two.

Some of them get a passing nod, but it doesn look very balanced to me.

You suggest that the hypothesis may strengthen, but dont mention the possibility that it could embarrassingly exposed also, seeing as it is explicitly based on "guesswork".


You ask;- As for Mosaic authorship: What is the real issue? Would it matter if we could show clearly that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch? Would Jews and Christians have to change any of their beliefs or doctrines?"

You mean apart from the fact that major parts of it are explicitly attributed to him and that the rest of bible, OT and NT does likewise.
This seems to be getting ridiculous.

:)

The biggest issue is that apart from a minor small print in this course, Hayes is effectively teaching complex and multiple authorship of the pentateuch as fact, while at the same time admitting this is complete guesswork.

In fact, let's be honest with everyone here, so far as I can see there is not a single shred of evidence in the entire world of this debate which precludes the possibility of Moses having been the author of the Pentateuch; Many parts of the bible explicitly quote from other texts within Paul's definition of inspired scripture; It appears we can be quite relaxed about the possibility that Moses may have drawn on oral traditions and/or written documents passed down to him, along with divine revelation and even that a handful of footnotes may have been added into the Pentateuch. And it can still easily be scripture.

But this viewpoint is never mentioned in this course.

I repeat, in centuries of scholarly debate on this subject, there is not a shred of evidence which precludes the possibility of Moses being the author. But no serious mention of this from Hayes

Objective? Scientific?

But let's remember Hayes ground rules for this course; the idea of scripture comes under "myth" and in its creation the bible has been "censored" and "manipulated" with monotheism "imposed" onto it.

To me that is a direct assault on any possibility of it being scripture, whether she accepts it or not. I dont think you will seriously disagree. If you do, I'd be interested to hear a serious attempt, not just six words.

I know David Kerr and Helio smell blood and cheer when they read Hayes.
But what about innocent inquirers who come to this course with an open mind? I feel it is all unfair to them when it is billed as objective and serious scholarship.

The rest of the bible and the NT frequently quote all parts of Genesis as history and its characters as real people. I can't see any way out of that consistency without completely destroying it. Can you offer any? Again, please dont offer me a trite sidestep, because it will just confirm to me what I am reading in Hayes lectures.


Overall, could the bible really have inspired western civilisation if it was effectively the fraud that Hayes makes out?

Could it really have inspired us to believe in absolute truth, a biblical industrial ethic, modern science and human rights, which I know you broadly agree that it did?

No, I dont think so, I think we would still be in a primative pagan society without it.

And to me the fact that we arent is completely consistent that it really is the word of God.

OT

Thanks William

You say that "Chris Hayes's account of the documentary hypothesis, here, is pretty standard stuff".

Will, it must be said, that depends on your definition of "standard" of course. The main thrust of what she is teaching regarding authorship of the pentateuch is seriously challenged by many liberal scholars, never mind conservative ones. I have a list of perhaps 20 names over the past century or two.

Some of them get a passing nod, but it doesn look very balanced to me.

You suggest that the hypothesis may strengthen, but dont mention the possibility that it could embarrassingly exposed also, seeing as it is explicitly based on "guesswork".


You ask;- As for Mosaic authorship: What is the real issue? Would it matter if we could show clearly that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch? Would Jews and Christians have to change any of their beliefs or doctrines?"

You mean apart from the fact that major parts of it are explicitly attributed to him and that the rest of bible, OT and NT does likewise.
This seems to be getting ridiculous.

:)

The biggest issue is that apart from a minor small print in this course, Hayes is effectively teaching complex and multiple authorship of the pentateuch as fact, while at the same time admitting this is complete guesswork.

In fact, let's be honest with everyone here, so far as I can see there is not a single shred of evidence in the entire world of this debate which precludes the possibility of Moses having been the author of the Pentateuch; Many parts of the bible explicitly quote from other texts within Paul's definition of inspired scripture; It appears we can be quite relaxed about the possibility that Moses may have drawn on oral traditions and/or written documents passed down to him, along with divine revelation and even that a handful of footnotes may have been added into the Pentateuch. And it can still easily be scripture.

But this viewpoint is never mentioned in this course.

I repeat, in centuries of scholarly debate on this subject, there is not a shred of evidence which precludes the possibility of Moses being the author. But no serious mention of this from Hayes

Objective? Scientific?

But let's remember Hayes ground rules for this course; the idea of scripture comes under "myth" and in its creation the bible has been "censored" and "manipulated" with monotheism "imposed" onto it.

To me that is a direct assault on any possibility of it being scripture, whether she accepts it or not. I dont think you will seriously disagree. If you do, I'd be interested to hear a serious attempt, not just six words.

I know David Kerr and Helio smell blood and cheer when they read Hayes.
But what about innocent inquirers who come to this course with an open mind? I feel it is all unfair to them when it is billed as objective and serious scholarship.

The rest of the bible and the NT frequently quote all parts of Genesis as history and its characters as real people. I can't see any way out of that consistency without completely destroying it. Can you offer any? Again, please dont offer me a trite sidestep, because it will just confirm to me what I am reading in Hayes lectures.


Overall, could the bible really have inspired western civilisation if it was effectively the fraud that Hayes makes out?

Could it really have inspired us to believe in absolute truth, a biblical industrial ethic, modern science and human rights, which I know you broadly agree that it did?

No, I dont think so, I think we would still be in a primative pagan society without it.

And to me the fact that we arent is completely consistent that it really is the word of God.

OT

OT

You've noticed the rest of us, right? Not just Will? I don't think that the course will disappear.
And the meaning of the text does seem quite important. I haven't heard Helio cheer. And I think David was just tossing insults about.
Can we get back to the text?

GV

OT
Without the bible we would still be a primitive pagan society.
So, the pagan Greek And Roman civilisations were primitive, and Europe after totalitarian Christianity prevailed, were wrong to be described, as the Dark Ages.

GV
A bit unfair to criticise David for a lack of insight into ancient literature.
Few Christians have any interest in any ancient literature, with their myths and Gods, other than the biblical.
The Bible is really just a big story book, and it is just a matter of literary taste, if preferred to tales of the supernatural, in perhaps, Superman comics.

Ad hominems? I thought the whole idea was to explore the text and engage in discourse where, perhaps, the whole community could learn from each other. Is it not a little na茂ve to be surprised at strong comments from all participants?

鈥淎nd I think David was just tossing insults about.鈥�
I have noted this comment and resolve to tone mine down. In my defence, as an atheist, I am conscience of the treatment of non believers throughout history and the current conflicts and persecution associated with texts such as Genesis. Perhaps that goes some way in explaining my passion for the subject.

Thank you, Parrhasios I have noted you are reading the work of Nahum Sarna and imagine I should put this book on my reading list. It is difficult to, how can I put this without sounding insulting鈥�.. study the bible as an individual who is uncomfortable with questions that are unanswerable with standard scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. I cannot see that changing any time soon.

I believe Hayes is approaching the study of the ancient Hebrew bible as an academic endeavour and therefore I imagine non Christians remain welcome.

I continue to welcome and enjoy all contributions.

Kind regards

DK

"He states that awareness of the existential human plight is a prerequisite for understanding a text designed to deal with it and applies the analogy of the deficiencies of a learned but tone-deaf music critic."

I really like this analogy, Parrhasios unfortuantly the tone deaf music critics have suffered terribly throughout time because of this text and insist on commenting on it. I understand a great deal of music analysis involves studying the score in written form. : )

Kind regards

DK

GV, DK

Please note that post 26 is about 95 per cent challenging Prof Haye's arguments and balance strictly within the parameters of academic discussion.

DK

Ref the scientific / supernatural problem, you might want to look at the debate on lecture 3 thread.


Rocharlie
Yes Greece and Rome flagged up as I wrote that subjective and speculative comment. Two points; Neither empire can hold a candle to western civilisation on the standards I have set up.

It is widely accepted that the bible is the foundation for western civiliation - even William accepts this.

But that it hardly the point of this thread - would be better to stick to the topic.



regards
OT

David - Prof Hayes recommends Sarna in lecture three and the instances which she cites of his insights interested me sufficiently to put him on my own reading list. I certainly welcome people of all beliefs, any beliefs, and no beliefs to the discussion - I do not, of-course, have any beliefs myself. Sarna, too, would certainly have welcomed non-Christians, being Jewish.

I accept that Prof Hayes' approach is academic but I think Sarna raises an important question with regard to that academic approach: he suggests the significance of the Bible lies ultimately in its religious dimension, without that dimension does it merit the attention?

I would say 'no'. Ancient Israel was not historically an important power. If we take the stories as literature there are equally interesting parallels from surrounding cultures and indeed much further afield. Apart from their singular God-idea, the intellectual contribution of Judaism to Western civilisation is probably not significantly greater than that of the Arab world and considerably less than that of classical Greece and Rome. An academic approach looking at the Bible as a foundation text for the understanding of European-based arts and letters would find no merit in the kind of course we taking.

Our course, at some level, presupposes that religious ideas are important in and of themselves. It is not a course on religious psychology, it is not an examination of the sociology of faith communities, it seems to be to be (so far) the consideration of an idea. Whether that idea is correct or not is incidental but if it is fundamentally about nothing then I wonder why we are spending our time on it.

I do hope you will stick with the course, your engagement to date has been very welcome. I have said why I am following the lectures, I am interested as to everyone else's motivations. I might imagine from # 30 and 31 that at least part of your interest relates to a perception of the Bible as a source of discrimination and persecution. If that is so I really look forward to your on-going perceptions in that regard.

I myself see very little difference in how humans generally treat one another from society to society or from age to age; it matters nothing whether the society is nominally Christian, communist, Buddhist, Hindu, secular, animistic, whatever. I think there are very real reasons for man's inhumanity to man and there is an answer as to why people are as they are, why there is discrimination, persecution, selfishness in the world around us. You will find that answer in the publications of a certain Richard Dawkins: many of his arguments are very persuasive. If I may plagiarise the title of Helio's blog the answers are in genetics not in Genesis.

DK

Thanks for taking note, and sorry that I misjudged you.

You sure you never lived in Glengormley as a kid?

GV

Just a quickie about snakes...

The snake's role in creation myths is extremely widespread going far beyond the lands of the ANE - it one of the many regular features associated with the development of man so either there is, as OT suggests, an abiding folk memory of some real event or the stories connect in some utterly deep way with how man sees himself or feels he needs to see himself. I need hardly say that I go with the latter idea.

The snake myth is polysemic but what I think it represents primarily in the Eden story is the shadow self. Like a shadow it's on the ground, it creeps after us, it's dark, it can be dangerous. What we are seeing then in Genesis is a representation of an internal dialogue. Humanity is asking what should it be and it decides to be a moral agent, it chooses choice.

It is interesting to see, again, Christ's temptation as a development of and complement to this dialogue. We are looking here, too, at an internal dialogue where Satan takes the snake's role as shadow self. This time the question though is more what should we do, how should we act in a moral, in a God-like way.

Just a few initial thoughts to stir the pot a little - there is much more I could say on this and probably will when time permits.

Parrhasios

I thought you did not have any interest in whether genesis was historical or not?

By describing it as "myth" you appear to have taken a clear stand against historical conclusion, but why?

:)

Maybe you could clarify?

cheers
OT

OT - in answer to your post # 36 above I think I will refer you to my post # 48 on the An Introduction to the Old Testament: Lecture 3 thread, the second paragraph, last sentence, concluding word: "hitherto".

It is an appalling thing to be doing during what should be a time of abstinence (Lent) but I am temporarily allowing myself the luxury of an opinion, purely, of-course, to facilitate discussion on this fascinating subject. (Does this shorten my odds any, Graham?)

I have just revisited Genesis 1-3 to consider the text within some historical paradigm. I am sorry but it reads like mythology. Perhaps it reads like mythology simply because it is mythology. When were these words originally created either in written or oral form? Three thousand years ago? Six thousand years ago? Humankind has inhabited the planet for two hundred thousand years therefore it seems plausible that a relatively late text would be shaped or influenced by earlier works such as Gilgamesh.

I confess that to the non believer it is disconcerting to hear that many take this text as historical truth. The subsequent books are full of extremely challenging commandments that reverberate to this day. Therefore if the opening passages are suspect, then we can presume what follows carries little weight, which in turn might reduce the harm they have done and continue to do.

DK

GV

In between your comedy routines, I would honestly be interested to hear your take on this, if you will put the work in to make a serious contribution!

:)


"...In fact, let's be honest with everyone here, so far as I can see there is not a single shred of evidence in the entire world of this debate which precludes the possibility of Moses having been the author of the Pentateuch; Many parts of the bible explicitly quote from other texts within Paul's definition of inspired scripture; It appears we can be quite relaxed about the possibility that Moses may have drawn on oral traditions and/or written documents passed down to him, along with divine revelation and even that a handful of footnotes may have been added into the Pentateuch. And it can still easily be scripture...."



OT

Parrahasios

Having an opinion is fine with me, I just didnt realise you were advancing one on this subject!

:)

OT

DK

Respect for taking the trouble to actually read the text!

What would you say are generally accepted standards for defining mythology?

OT

OT
Cherubim, talking serpents, men/women made out of dust? Snow White is more plausible.

DK

PS I "revisited" the text.... behave! : )

OT
"a serious contribution"

You missed all my questions about snakes and existentialism?!! I'm gutted.)-: Took me an hour and ahalf putting that together, and only Parr's paid attention.
Ho-hum...

GV

Worked on the Sabbath to find out about serpents and everything!

DK

Ok I'll behave :)

You question genesis because of "Cherubim, talking serpents, men/women made out of dust?" and conclude that "Snow White is more plausible".

I know where you are coming from, yes it does sound fantastic.

And yet.......

The gospel accounts have plenty of angels....... and a legion of devils possessing a herd of pigs...... and a man raised from the dead.

Vast numbers of people have no problems with these concepts in the gospels, which are generally accepted as historical documents about real people.

I also understand that the human body *is* actually constituted of the same base materials as earth.

Plenty of very intelligent people do actually believe that Adam at one time or another was a real person. By faith I certainly find it very plausible.

And Snow White? Maybe there was something to her too?



Well my six year old daughter is a massive fan!

:)

OT

Thanks Will

You'ver certainly given respect to just about every position there, which I have no problems with at all.

I would much appreciate your thoughts on Plantinga's defence of God in science, if you could. cheers.

I think Prof Haye's explicit apparent mistake about there only being a generic man and no personal Adam also demands a response from the tutor, please.

--------------------------

As an aside, DK,

I can't get the Snow White think out of my head.

I had assumed it really was a fairytale and nothing more.

But to hear there is a serious academic argument that she was a real person challenged my assumptions about folklore etc in a way I had not expected.

And I actually believe in a literal Adam, at some time or another.

It would appear you had a similar preconception about Snow White as I did.

If there is historical credibility for actual people behind popular fairtales, then why not a literal Adam also, at some point in history?

OT

PS, just for the record, CS Lewis apparently expressed grave reservations about evolution towards the end of his life.