ANY here View Genesis Creation/Adam as merely "Myths?"

[Greektim]

Actually the point was Genesis as a whole as literal[... The point was Genesis as being literal

Not according to the title of the thread, the OP, AND your post that I initially responded to (http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1815894&postcount=2). It has been about the creation story of Genesis and Adam. You cited Jesus, yet gave no Scripture (don't you accuse me of that later on... let's see).

The Title makes the statement. When Jesus used the title He made the statement in recognition.

I agree, the title makes the claim that Moses is the author. But if Jesus didn't invent the title but is simply using it b/c he is speaking colloquially, then it does not prove your assertion. Since the point of the passage you mentioned was not to prove authorship, and the passage came from Exodus not Genesis, it doesn't prove your point. But I will grant you this much, it goes forth as an argument. I am conflicted because it is hard to imagine Jesus not correcting the term if it was not correct. But that is an argument of silence, so I never posited it. Thus I said that you are on a good track. You've got a good point. It is not conclusive, but it is good.

Sorry but every conversation I have ever had with those who illogically try to nuance these things always leads to a total denial. Always... Yea I know. More nuance to find a complete denial

Which demonstrates your overstating here. You've just met someone who nuances (logically I would add) the conversation for clarity and specificity without denying anything (certainly not "complete denial", sheesh). You could say that I'm playing devil's advocate here. I affirm a literal reading of Genesis as far as the historicity of the stories are concerned.

If you are insisting on discounting fundies then I find you are afraid of their arguments. I read all sorts of sources. I even read those who refuse to accept a literal rendering of Genesis. It is always good to see where the enemy is going now.

I'm not discounting them out right. I used to be one. And I am certainly not afraid of them. I just find that they are more concerned w/ the pursuit of certainty than truth. Moses authorship of Genesis is an example. It is easier and more certain of a result to say Moses is the sole author of Genesis w/out harming their view of inspiration w/out considering other possibilities that would make their inspiration view less certain or stable.

And your arrogance shows your bias. It is a common result that those who think that because they allow for more nuances they are more read, studied, and honest. While they are usually wrong on all accounts they are also wrong on their conclusions. Nuance is for hyper intellectuals who place more value and faith in their own logicv and study that in the word and God.

Forgive me, but I really don't see where I showed arrogance. In fact, did you not just come out and say that those who are more studied and read are usually wrong on all accounts? Isn't that kind of certainty arrogance??? Then you criticize my for finding value in my own logic yet earlier you deemed me to be illogical. What am I to make of that?

I am not interested in following the view of another person. I do not quote other men as proof that I am right. I read and study and consider a plethora of views. But in the end the final analysis is my own. Not other men.

So I am wrong b/c I value the views of scholars wiser than me? I am wrong b/c I am a researcher with a passion for the truth rather than certainty? Espousing a view does not make your final analysis your own. And your certainly on a subject does not make other views wrong outright.






And as for preaching4jesus... I sent you a private message apologizing for my poor behavior on the NPP thread. I meant every word of it. I didn't think I showed the same kind of attitude to MandyM, but perhaps I am wrong and should seek forgiveness from her. I just want our words and thoughts to be sharpened. Thus the devil's advocate.

But as for p4j, I have you on ignore since you do not acknowledge my pm but insist on your tirade. If you look at your last post, you criticize me of condescension when you do the exact same. If you refuse to listen to my points, then why shouldn't I have you on ignore. PM me if you want to talk.

 

[Iconoclast]

Where did Jesus do that??? I'm speaking of Moses and Genesis in particular, but creation story as literal and fact in general.

Here is Jesus quoting from Genesis...with some explanation; in mt19

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

This is written in genesis before we have any account of anyone leaving father or mother...marraige is a creation ordinance....Gen2

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

here again we have this;
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Clearly Jesus spoke of Mosaic authorship.....any "so called scholar" that denies what Jesus says....most likely will learn the truth in hell lifting up his eyes.....like the rich man in Lk16'

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

looks like the rich man learned of Mosaic authorship the hard way.




27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

 

[plain_n_simple]

ANY here View Genesis Creation/Adam as merely "Myths?"

I'm wondering if this was one of the reasons the genealogy of Jesus is listed in three of the Gospels?

 

[Aaron]

Here is Jesus quoting from Genesis...with some explanation; in mt19
[/B]

This is written in genesis before we have any account of anyone leaving father or mother...marraige is a creation ordinance....Gen2



here again we have this;
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Clearly Jesus spoke of Mosaic authorship.....any "so called scholar" that denies what Jesus says....most likely will learn the truth in hell lifting up his eyes.....like the rich man in Lk16'

looks like the rich man learned of Mosaic authorship the hard way.




27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself

44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

:thumbs:This is exactly where I was heading.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If by myth you mean the lay understanding of the term where a story is fictional and untrue, then no genesis is not myth.

If by myth you mean the academic understanding of the term where myth is an origins story often involving the supernatural intending to give context to the natural and social elements of a worldview, then yes Genesis is myth. It is not 'merely' myth because it is so much more.

 

[HankD]

ANY here View Genesis Creation/Adam as merely "Myths?"

Not me (Or is it "Not I").

HankD

 

[jonathan.borland]

Does anyone here really think that saying Moses was the author of the Pentateuch means that he had to pen every word of it? The last chapter of Deut certainly reads as if another prophet much later was writing. Deut 34:10 is not a very good complement to Moses unless referring to a long line of people who did not rise to his level of communion with God. In fact it is setting us up for the one to surpass Moses, i.e., the Messiah! And in fact the same one who penned these words has his inspired Messianic marks all over Moses' Pentateuch and indeed over the entire OT canon. That doesn't make the Pentateuch non-Mosaic even by modern attributions of authorship.

 

[mandym]

Forgive me, but I really don't see where I showed arrogance. In fact, did you not just come out and say that those who are more studied and read are usually wrong on all accounts?

Nope

So I am wrong b/c I value the views of scholars wiser than me? I am wrong b/c I am a researcher with a passion for the truth rather than certainty? Espousing a view does not make your final analysis your own. And your certainly on a subject does not make other views wrong outright.

Trying to pit certainty against truth is just silly

I meant every word of it. I didn't think I showed the same kind of attitude to MandyM, but perhaps I am wrong and should seek forgiveness from her.

You don't need my forgiveness just weigh your words more carefully from here out.

I just want our words and thoughts to be sharpened. Thus the devil's advocate.

I don't want to engage in devils advocate play. I want to deal with actual views of those I am speaking with.

[/QUOTE]

 

[jonathan.borland]

BTW, the creation account is not merely myth, although it is prehistorical. History in most cultures generally begin with myths including flood accounts. China's 5000 year history has at its beginning a flood account and people who lived many hundreds of years. But it is prehistory since the records we have are based on oral "myths" that were written down thousands of years after the fact (or beginning of the stories).

 

[Greektim]

You don't need my forgiveness just weigh your words more carefully from here out.

That was my entire purpose - weighing more carefully our words. I wanted to demonstrate that you overstated your case. However, you offered something compelling and that is commendable. I think my motive was assumed to be nefarious rather than altruistic. I was genuinely trying to see iron sharpen iron. I'll even admit that you taught me a prooftext that should be considered more in this debate. So I say thank you.

 

[mandym]

That was my entire purpose - weighing more carefully our words. I wanted to demonstrate that you overstated your case. However, you offered something compelling and that is commendable. I think my motive was assumed to be nefarious rather than altruistic. I was genuinely trying to see iron sharpen iron. I'll even admit that you taught me a prooftext that should be considered more in this debate. So I say thank you.

Altruism finds itself being contrary when none is needed more often than not.

 

[Greektim]

Altruism finds itself being contrary when none is needed more often than not.

Fair enough... I'll leave you to it then.

(BTW... that is a quotable there)

 

[Crabtownboy]

That tell through a story facts to us in literary form?

Yes, In Genesis there are two creations stories. They cannot be reconciled if taken literally or without quite a leap of interpretation.

Cheers.

 

[DaChaser1]

Allow me to split hairs here. But you didn't cite anything about the flood in Gen. 1. Isn't that the point of the OP???

Neither did you demonstrate where Jesus says that Moses wrote Genesis. Though he used a common title "Book of Moses", he was quoting Exodus. Even if he is referring to Torah, that doesn't mean Moses wrote it. If all the people called it "Book of Moses" just as we call it Pentateuch, it doesn't really prove authorship. It just means Jesus used the common title for the 1st 5 books of the Bible that we call the Pentateuch. Jews called Torah and Book of Moses and Law. But I will grant you that this is closer than I thought you would get. I've not heard this used for Moses' authorship of Genesis. Not bad.

I'm not totally denying Moses' authorship of Genesis. I just think it is not so easily defended on the basis of "Jesus said it, I believe it" argument. Plus, we know many places in Genesis that experience redaction. So Genesis had other "writers" as well.

Moses would have wrote the bulk of it, and even the "redaction" would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to make sure things/events were recorded correctly, eh?

 

[DaChaser1]

That still answers nothing about Jesus saying anything about creation as you argued earlier.


I think I said as much. But I'm not sure you addressed what I said. "Book of Moses" was an ancient title for the Law/Torah/Pentateuch. It doesn't prove anything other than the title ascribed authorship to Moses. Jesus used it as a title not a statement of authorship. But you are on a good track.



There is nuance here, I'm not denying that. But it is not a total denial. That is simply an overstatement. My nuance is that Jesus doesn't contend for a literal 6 day creation (at least not recorded in the gospel accounts). If that is a denial, then I think we need to start back at logic 101.

However, if you want a place for honest discussion where subjects like authorship of Genesis is discusses beyond "weak and illogical argument," then I challenge you to read any modern evangelical (not fundie) OT intro or survey that addresses this. Hill and Walton would be a good place to start. I doubt (though know I could very well be wrong) that you've really engaged this issue beyond a cursory level. Authorship of the Torah as well as the OT books are greatly misunderstood in light of NT thinking of authorship. OT was about editing and theological compilation as much as it was authorship. Many evangelical OT scholars would say that inspiration took place at the final product. Moses did not pen the final product, in their view.

Not that this really has much bearing on the OP. Creation account in Gen. 1-2: yes I believe it to be literal (closer to the Sailhamer view, though).

The original writtings, the copiliation/editing/final product were ALL perserved and guided through to make sure end result is an infallible/inerrant text by the HS Himself!

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes, In Genesis there are two creations stories. They cannot be reconciled if taken literally or without quite a leap of interpretation.

Cheers.

ONE story, its just that one aspect of it, general creation is contrasted with the specifc one of Man!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Even modern genetics proposes that the human race's most recent common ancestor (MRCA) was only as little as 5000 years ago. That's about as far back as "myths" predating history in any culture go. Of course we know that the MRCA is Noah!

 

[Greektim]

Moses would have wrote the bulk of it, and even the "redaction" would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to make sure things/events were recorded correctly, eh?

Are you actually asking for my view? I've already derailed this thread enough. If you want to talk about canonical theology and a compilation view of the OT, then we can start a separate thread.