Genesis 1-11

[Fenris]

scientifically naive peoples

The bible isn't here to teach us science. We can discover that by ourselves. It's here to teach us moral and ethical lessons and give our lives meaning.

[Athanasius]

I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.

There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.

There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.

I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.

I am most certainly not a YEC adherent.

This poster is merely playing copy pasta. Their reply above to Fenris is lifted from https://creation.com/jesus-right-on-genesis, as well as a couple of other forums. I'm debating closing this thread as the user is effectively stealing other people's content by failing to attribute.

The work is my own!  I wrote a letter to Shaun Doyle at Creation Ministries International and, without my permission, he published it verbatim it in an article.  I have posted similar work on Christian Forums and the Baptist Board.  As you can see for yourself, when I quoted from John Skinner and others scholars, I always gave them credit for their work.

You'll notice my complaint was about the copy-pasta without attribution, not that you were attributing those you attributed. You may know yourself to be jemand, but to us you're niemand. We just don't know you, and so all I see is copy-pasta referencing other accounts on other forums, content on other websites, etc. And in addition, bizarre references to "us", ignoring Fenris' rebuttal re: poetical/allegorical language, and so on. So it comes across like, you're plagiarising yourself to reply to people just to ignore them just to get the point you wrote 4 years ago.

Y'know

[RabbiKnife]

Dragons….

Pfffffffff

[Jemand]

Paul H. Seely, in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40, correctly writes,
 
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.

Modern biblical scholars. Great. That doesn't mean that they're right, or that this is how the words were understood in ancient times. As I have already said, there are no mainstream Jewish or Christian sects that understand the word that way. It doesn't matter how many "modern scholars" you quote.

Paul H. Seely, in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40, correctly writes,
 
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.

Modern biblical scholars. Great. That doesn't mean that they're right, or that this is how the words were understood in ancient times. As I have already said, there are no mainstream Jewish or Christian sects that understand the word that way. It doesn't matter how many "modern scholars" you quote.

Dismissing out of hand as wrong the views of scholars representing a very wide spectrum of theological thought (Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) simply because their views are different than yours (whatever that view may be—you have not told us) does not mean that you are right and that they are wrong.   Indeed, all that we have gotten from your posts is that they are wrong with no Hebrew lexica, commentaries on the Hebrew text, peer reviewed journal articles, etc., to support the claim that they are wrong.  I, on the other hand, have provided direct quotes from all of the above.

The article that I referenced above by Paul Seely is a detailed peer reviewed journal article that supports the view that the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is correctly translated as “dome” in the context of Genesis 1:6-8.  Do you have any evidence that the view that he supports is wrong?

[Jemand]

Dragons….

Pfffffffff

I do not understand your posts.

[RabbiKnife]

Proponents of a flat earth always have a dragon stashed on the edge where you fall off if you go too far…

[Athanasius]

Proponents of a flat earth always have a dragon stashed on the edge where you fall off if you go too far…

Wait a second... do you think The Thing's spacecraft crashed into the side of the earth?

[Fenris]

Dismissing out of hand as wrong the views of scholars representing a very wide spectrum of theological thought (Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) simply because their views are different than yours (whatever that view may be—you have not told us) does not mean that you are right and that they are wrong.

I'm an observant Jewish guy on a devout Christian forum. Believe me, I have no problem listening to views that are different from mine. My issue is something different: specifically, that you are citing scholars who are trying to overturn religious orthodoxy, both Jewish and Christian. Just because someone is a "scholar" does not give them the authority to do that, but you grant it to them anyway.

I didn't see that you cited any religious Jewish sources, and why would I care if you cited Muslim ones? They have no standing in either Judaism or Christianity.


 

Indeed, all that we have gotten from your posts is that they are wrong with no Hebrew lexica

Yes, because I learned the bible in Hebrew. I didn't need a "scholar" to explain it to me. I went straight to the source.

The article that I referenced above by Paul Seely is a detailed peer reviewed journal article that supports the view that the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is correctly translated as “dome” in the context of Genesis 1:6-8.  Do you have any evidence that the view that he supports is wrong?

You can't just cite some obscure source and dare me to disprove it. I have no idea who Paul Seely is, why should I believe anything that he says? Because you're commanding me to?

[Fenris]

Wait a second... do you think The Thing's spacecraft crashed into the side of the earth?

Oooo the plot thickens!

[Fenris]

  Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths. 

I have more questions.

Where does the "myth" end? Once you open up the bible for analysis in this way, it's all up for grabs.

There are those who say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mythological characters. So are their 12 sons. There's no historical evidence for Joseph as the prime minister of Egypt under the name "Tzafnas Paneah". Moses, Joshua, and David and Solomon are also considered myths by some. The first biblical king for whom we have extra-biblical historical evidence is Hezekiah, whom the Assyrian king Sennacherib claimed to have shut up in Jerusalem "like a bird in a cage". But some say that the entire Pentateuch was written in Babylon, so it's all myth. There are those who say that Jesus and his disciples are myths. Maybe "Big Mo" Mohammed was real, so we should be following him? Surely Joseph Smith was real, so should we all be converting to LDS?

Where does it end?

[RabbiKnife]

It ends in destruction.

It ends at Utah Valley.

It ends with Judges and every man doing what is right in his own eyes.

[Fenris]

I hear that. "Biblical scholars" aren't any different from scholars who study Shakespeare. Looking at writing style and use of language is fine when dealing with a secular book. It's fine when you do it with a religious book also, so long as you don't get so caught in the weeds that you miss the overall message of the book. Which our OP seems to be doing.

[Athanasius]

I hear that. "Biblical scholars" aren't any different from scholars who study Shakespeare. Looking at writing style and use of language is fine when dealing with a secular book. It's fine when you do it with a religious book also, so long as you don't get so caught in the weeds that you miss the overall message of the book. Which our OP seems to be doing.

It depends on the scholar, but yeah, there's a vein of scholarship that treats it as an ancient, historical text, just as any other ancient, historical text is. Homer, the Jewish Scriptures. Old, special in a way because they're old, but nothing transcendent.

[Fenris]

The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.

[Sojourner]

The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.

You occasionally get those who see the board as a pulpit to teach from, rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.