+
/ Topic > On Not Tickling Their Ears /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 28Jan2002 /
.
> On 27Jan Sealeaf wrote: Textman, I can see by your posts
> why you have that name, you are drowning us in text.
.
textman replies: Hello Sealeaf. I'm sorry you feel that way.
It is not my intention to drown anyone. Rather, it is my hope
that believers would find my labors to be of some interest,
and indeed are eager for more. As Stephen King says:
"More is more!"
.
> In one paragraph, what is your point?
.
Well, Sealeaf, I'm not sure that my point can be explained in
one paragraph; and even if it could, I wouldn't recommend it.
It would be like squeezing 'War and Peace' into two pages. It
could maybe be done, but it wouldn't be the same as reading
the unabridged version. We have to trust that the author
knows what he's doing by setting things forth the way that
he does. The good news is that my point will be apparent in
the next installment. Be thou patient therefore; for the end
is near.
.
> I am not convinced by your assertion that Abraham was a
> fictional character simply because you say Genisis was not
> written as a history. Genisis was not written as fiction.
.
Quite right. Categories such as fiction and non-fiction
did not exist in the minds of the biblical authors,
and I (for one) respect that fact.
.
> It was intended as factual, if not according to the strict
> definitions of "history" that a 21st century historian is
> bound to. Even if it was a fiction, that does not mean that
> every character in it is fictional. Nor does the inclusion
> of mythic elements mean that every element within the
> book of Genisis is myth.
.
Interesting argument. It's very like Anderson's position when
he admits that the story of Joseph and his brothers is a literary
composition, BUT EVEN SO he would prefer to suppose that Joseph
was a real man, and so proceeds upon that assumption. This is
like admitting that Genesis *is* mythology, but that it is
*also* factual history. But you can't really have it both ways.
Either it is mythology or it isn't. Period. You and Anderson are
both making the mistake of thinking with your heart rather than
with your head. The average believer may be excused for doing
this, but the exegete ought to know better.
.
> The Iliad is a work of literature. A poem, not a history,
> it is filled with mythical greek gods and godesses. Yet it
> is about real people and real places and a real war. The
> proof of which was Schillman's excavation of Troy based
> on the description of its location in the Iliad.
.
In the same way, the story of Joseph is about real places (eg.
Egypt), and contains some historically accurate information
about customs and cultures, but none of this makes it any less
fictional. In the same way, the story of the flood is based on
ancient memories pertaining to the flooding of the Mediterranean
Basin that created the Great Sea, but this does not mean that
Noah and his ark were actual historical events. If the cyber-
saints wish to believe that Genesis is true and factual in every
detail that is certainly their privilege; but as a serious and
competent commentator I have no choice but to think like an
historian, and to think with my head first, rather than with my
heart. In my opinion, the truth demands nothing less.
.
> To prove your assertion that Abraham is fictional
> you need positive evidence of that.
.
I need positive evidence that Abraham did not exist? That's
kind of like asking me to provide a photograph of a unicorn in
order to "prove" that unicorns don't exist. History doesn't work
that way, Sealeaf. History is about probabilities; based upon
the idea that the universe does not radically change it's nature
and character, but rather remains consistent over time. This
does NOT mean that miracles and supernatural events cannot
occur, but it does mean that in the long run the logos of the
cosmos prevails and abides. In other words, the probability is
that Abraham was an invention of, by, and *for* the newly born
nation of Israel. Rather than asking me to prove the unprovable,
you should be asking yourself what role did Abraham play in the
life of the early People of God. 4X: What was his meaning and
relevance to Israel's self-identity? These are the sort of
questions that lead to understanding.
.
> If you can't supply it then why should we pay
> any attention to you?
.
1) Because I know whereof I speak.
2) Because I do not teach according to the lies and illusions
of the scribes and pharisees who seek only to deceive the
People of God so as to keep them firmly bound up in chains
of pious ignorance (to their own great advantage).
3) Because I love the truth, and will speak the truth ...
according to the will of God, and the grace of our Lord JC.
.
> You talk much but can't back up your words.
.
Sure I can. But you have to love the truth as much as I do
in order to appreciate just how important and revolutionary
my vision of the Word really is.
.
- one who stands upon the universal llogos - textman ;>
.
PS "But thanks be to God who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ
and who makes known through us the fragrance that consists of the knowledge
of him in every place. For we are a sweet aroma of Christ to God among those
who are being saved, and among those who are perishing; to the latter an odor
from death to death, but to the former a fragrance from life to life. And who is
adequate for these things? For we are not like so many others, hucksters who
peddle the word of God for profit; but we are speaking in Christ before God as
persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God." -- 2Cor.2:14-17 / NETbible
x
textman
*