Genesis 1

[BronzeArcher]

I was discussing with another member here and I was asked why I didn't write essay-length posts. Well, here's a small one cut from a topic @ Christianforums.com (CF for short). I had some blurb against some bad YEC rhetoric (like constantly asking if I believed in absolute truth) and begging questions, so I'll leave that out.

---

My thesis is that Genesis cosmology functions as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system (or at least very much of it).

The topic of purity is a pretty fundamental socio-cultural one. Purity deals with order. The structure of all of life. Objects, people, times, and seasons--they all have their proper place. Everyone has their own purity system, however developed or inherited from society.

David deSilva says, (David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, p.243)

"Purity codes are a way of talking about what is proper for a certain place and a certain time (however one's society fills in the content). Pollution is a label attached to whatever is out of place with regard to the society's view of an orderly and safe world. Purity has to do with drawing the lines that give definition to the world around us, distinguishing, for example, what belongs to an individual from what belongs to others, and then defending these lines from being crosed by unwelcome forces."

A modern illustration is 'dirt'. (ibid. This illustration was originally used by Mary Douglas in Purity and Danger, 1966.) If there is some dirt in the middle of the living room, we will remove it--it is not supposed to be there and hence is pollution. The modern use of "pollution" refers to chemicals and waste that damage the environment. Environment in the anthropological sense refers the purity system. However, we have no problems with dirt being in the garden, outside. We believe that is the proper place for dirt. Our rationale for this is mainly medical. Dirt, of course, is dirty. We would much rather sleep in a clean bed than a dirty one.

With that groundwork of understanding purity, we can look at the Jewish purity system, with it's distinctions of clean vs unclean, holy vs profane/common. From a cursory reading of Genesis 1, one may note neat divisions of creation (read: purity maps). The dividing agents are the 'days'. Whether the days are supposed to be 24-hr periods or not does not impact my thesis. Anthropologist Mary Douglas gives these parallels and explanation between Genesis and Leviticus:

"The dietary laws systematically pick up the order of creation in Genesis. In Genesis 1, the first two days of creation set up the four cardinal points and the next four days are spent putting living denizens into the earth, sky, and water and putting the lights of the starts and planets into the sky. Genesis:

* First two days: 1.1-10. Creation of Light, Earth, Firmament and Water. Compare the four elements, fire, earth, air and water in other philosophies in Asia Minor.
* Third day: 1.11-13. Vegetation on the earth.
* Fourth day: 1.14-19. Stars in the heavenly firmament for signs and for seasons, for days and years, creation of the sun and the moon.
* Fifth day: 1.20-23. Filling the waters with moving creatures that have life.
* Sixth day: 1.24-31. Populating the earth with all kinds of living creatures, and creation of humankind to have dominion over them.

Compare with Leviticus' list of prohibited animal foods:

* On the earth (Lev. 11.2-8)
* In the waters (Lev. 11.9-12)
* In the air (Lev. 11.13-25)

In these three environments the book goes on systematically to distinguish clean and unclean creatures. On the earth, among quadrupeds, if they do not cleave the hoof like domestic herds and flocks, they cannot be eaten; even if they do not cleave the hoof but do chew the cud, or if they do cleave the hoof but do not chew the cud, they are unclean. In the waters fish with scales and fins are clean, but not the rest. In the air clean two-winged creatures are those that can walk and hop on the earth."
- Mary Douglas, "The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 59, 1993, p. 16

---

What this leads one towards, in the realm of ancient lit., is understanding that Genesis cosmology cannot faithfully be interpreted scientifically. It is not intended to give a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe, but it is etiological; the undergirding of their entire (or a large percent of) purity system.

Now... who wants cookies?

[Darth Executor]

Now... who wants cookies?

No cookies but I'm gonna send you some pearls. :thumb:

[runecrow]

I was discussing...What this leads one towards, in the realm of ancient lit., is understanding that Genesis cosmology cannot faithfully be interpreted scientifically. It is not intended to give a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe, but it is etiological; the undergirding of their entire (or a large percent of) purity system.

Being honest, I'm not sure what you have just proposed. Are you proposing that I do not take Genesis 1 as... what are you proposing? That "beginning" doesn't mean "beginning", "created" doesn't mean "created" and "heaven and earth" doesn't mean "heaven and earth"? Created luminaries doesn't mean created luminaries? It's some form of cypher or something? How do you justify the cypher? The question is, why would I not take this literally since it's written in a literal style. Also, a question in the back of my mind is, how could the writer have written a literal account of creation (read, the factual, historical account of the unfolding universe) if even his prose is to be understood as some form of allegoric cypher? How could we know when factual history is being recorded, and when it isn't?

Given that prose is prose, I would think that someone writing such would intend to be taken at face value by natural default.

[BronzeArcher]

"The question is, why would I not take this literally since it's written in a literal style."

I can't answer the would, but I did answer the should.

[runecrow]

"The question is, why would I not take this literally since it's written in a literal style."

I can't answer the would, but I did answer the should.

Could you perhaps cite a few verses from Genesis 1 and then apply your theory to the verses to show what is being meant by the verses?

Right now, it seems to me that you're arguing the allegory as the sole intent. What I mean is, I could probably appreciate your theory in an allegoric fashion which supplements what is conveyed. But I don't find an adequate reason to supplant (or, rather, disregard) what is literally stated with an allegory. That is, at Galatians (c.3, I believe), Paul says that Hagar is an allegory of Sinai. So, I understand a supplemental from a literal. But I don't dismiss Hagar as entirely allegoric with no literal substance.

The real point is that the writer is writing in prose. I don't see why anyone would take this to be anything but a matter-of-fact account. Allegoric application will, to my notion, find their being in the literal.

[BronzeArcher]

Allegory, roughly, is finding meaning in each symbol. I haven't done that. If I were doing an allegory of Genesis, well, I'd be really wierd, but I'd be making something out of the order of creation, perhaps some kind of spiritual hierarchy where angels are represented by the stars. Or I'd say something about the phrase used about the waters gathering.

My thesis is explicitly about the function of Genesis cosmology; that it is etiological. I think you are greatly misunderstanding it by bringing up allegory.

[runecrow]

Allegory, roughly, is finding meaning in each symbol. I haven't done that. If I were doing an allegory of Genesis, well, I'd be really wierd, but I'd be making something out of the order of creation, perhaps some kind of spiritual hierarchy where angels are represented by the stars. Or I'd say something about the phrase used about the waters gathering.

My thesis is explicitly about the function of Genesis cosmology; that it is etiological. I think you are greatly misunderstanding it by bringing up allegory.

I am just not understanding at all how you are applying the term etiology to Genesis 1. Etiologies are used to explain why something is the way it is, right? "Why do dogwood trees have a curiously stunted and squat appearence?" "Because the cross was made of dogwood and so now they refuse to grow in anything other than a lowly form." That's an etiological myth, yes? I simply can't understand how you're applying that concept to Genesis 1.

[BronzeArcher]

It's the rationale for their purity system.

[runecrow]

It's the rationale for their purity system.

I don't think that is etiological. But, going ahead and calling it that still seems to beg the question of what "It" is (i.e. It's the rationale...). What I mean is, when you say, "It's the rationale" It seems to be refering to, "God creating the heaven and earth in six days". So, a system of purity is an 'effect' finding its 'cause' in "God creating the heaven and the earth in six days". But how is that supposed to argue that the cause isn't literal? It seems to do the opposite. As in the etiological myth of the dogwood, the cause (dogwood cross) is meant to be taken as a literality which then produces a literal effect (stunted dogwood).

I'm simply not seeing either an argument for a non-literal Genesis 1.

[BronzeArcher]

If you don't think it is etiological, you need to show that the evidence I presented is insufficient to reach its conclusion, or that the evidence is erroneous, or some other kind of error, logical or factual. I'm not sure what you think a six-day creation does to my thesis or argument, but even if there was a twelve or fourteen day creation it would not make much of a difference; the referencing would be a little different.

Here is my thesis: Genesis cosmology functions as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system (or at least very much of it).

There should be no confusion after reading the rest of it, what I am referring to. I grant that there could be something unclear, but if so, please help me by pointing it out.

[magus]

You know, I thought I posted something here, but maybe not...

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the author of Genesis wrote it down the way he did to justify the Mosaic law (aka purity system).

If this is what you mean, I can tell you you're wrong. Plain simple. The purity system is derived from Genesis, yes, maybe. Not the other way around. The Christian/Jewish belief is that the records of Genesis were handed down orally from God to Adam (1st 6 days, anyway) and down the generations, until writing was devised, whereupon it cuold have been set down on 'paper'. The Israelites would have copies of these records; orally or otherwise, when Moses brought them out of Egypt. Then Moses simply sat down and compiled them properly. He probably wrote a bit of it through God's breathing as well. Er, inspiration from the Holy Spirit, that is.

I point out to you that ALL the authors of the Bible, OT and NT, accept Genesis 1-50 as historical in nature. Jesus Himself attests to that; (the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah...). Paul points out that Jesus is the second Adam (the male man created by God on the 6th day).

However, if you are saying that Moses set up the purity code based on the order in which God went around creating things, I see no problem with that. In fact, seeing as God was the one who handed Moses all these laws in the first place, it would pretty much make sense.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[BronzeArcher]

Nowhere in my thesis do I posit priority of codification. I'm not sure how you found that. In fact I'm not even sure I considered which was written first. Are you just reacting to something that implies a non-literal interpretation? :eh:

You also beg huge exegetical questions, which is not too great of a move.

[Higon]

Forgive my ignorance, but:

a) "My thesis is that Genesis cosmology functions as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system (or at least very much of it)"

b) "From a cursory reading of Genesis 1, one may note neat divisions of creation (read: purity maps). The dividing agents are the 'days'."

c) "What this leads one towards, in the realm of ancient lit., is understanding that Genesis cosmology cannot faithfully be interpreted scientifically. It is not intended to give a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe, but it is etiological; the undergirding of their entire (or a large percent of) purity system."


How so? Sorry, but I can´t get your point... What precludes Genesis from giving a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe and yet function as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system?


Now, back to the tomb. :eek:

[runecrow]

If you don't think it is etiological, you need to show that the evidence I presented is insufficient to reach its conclusion, or that the evidence is erroneous, or some other kind of error, logical or factual.

Well, unless there's some alternate form of etiology, I can only say that, "etiologies give theological explanations for names or occurrences. Example: the story of Lot's wife in Genesis 19 (specifically 26) explains why there are pillars of salt in the area of the Dead Sea." As far as I am amble to understand what you're saying, your argument just doesn't fall into that category.

However, more to the point, since I would be arguing a literal interpretation of Genesis, I really wouldn't want to show that your argument of etiology is wrong. An etiology uses something meant to be a literal occurence to explain the way something is, as in the above example. Therefore, to cite an etiology as you are doing would argue that Genesis 1 is the literal occurence which explains why the purity system is as it is. So, in a roundabout way, you are actually arguing for a literal understanding of Genesis 1.

Here is my thesis: Genesis cosmology functions as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system (or at least very much of it).

Okay. And therefore, the literal occurence of Genesis 1 is the basis for the purity system. I am not aware of a single etiology that proposes that the cause wasn't an actuality. It seems to me that all you are really doing is attempting to show a correlation between Genesis 1 and the purity system (something I am not sure of, but would entertain the idea to determine a valid conclusion; it seems plausible enough to me right now). But the fact that you're calling it etiological undermines your very position that Genesis 1 isn't literal.

[BronzeArcher]

I'll reply to both just to avoid double posting.

How so? Sorry, but I can´t get your point... What precludes Genesis from giving a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe and yet function as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system?

Now, back to the tomb. :eek:

The how is answered in the purity discussion. IMO it's not something you can just pick up, but you need to understand some things about purity maps (well, Torah purity maps anyway) and how they're structured. Perhaps you could look into that a little, then come back and see if it makes more sense. I could send you a file where the OP is contained, along with relevant discussion of purity... a little more fleshed out, IIRC.

There is nothing that shoves in a sharp divide between function and history IMO, that's like saying there's a sharp divide between evidence and faith. The evidence may be the root of the faith, just like history may be the root of the function. Or something like that. But I don't suggest that there's some kind of logical contradiction or dichotomy.

Would you like some cookies to take back to the tomb? :smile:

Well, unless there's some alternate form of etiology, I can only say that, "etiologies give theological explanations for names or occurrences. Example: the story of Lot's wife in Genesis 19 (specifically 26) explains why there are pillars of salt in the area of the Dead Sea." As far as I am amble to understand what you're saying, your argument just doesn't fall into that category.

However, more to the point, since I would be arguing a literal interpretation of Genesis, I really wouldn't want to show that your argument of etiology is wrong. An etiology uses something meant to be a literal occurence to explain the way something is, as in the above example. Therefore, to cite an etiology as you are doing would argue that Genesis 1 is the literal occurence which explains why the purity system is as it is. So, in a roundabout way, you are actually arguing for a literal understanding of Genesis 1.

Neat argument. :smile: It's very cogent. Two problems arise though, in answering either way:

1. Whether etiologies must be supposedly historical or not, and
2. Whether Genesis cosmology should be grouped along with other comparitive examples

Personally I don't know enough about ancient lit (I'd need a pretty wide and specific knowledge) to argue either way. I do see that there are etiologies used today that are not taken as historical, but these are children's tales, and so comparison between the two seems silly (despite their history). So, while I don't think etiologies MUST be taken as historical events, the only splat of lit that is legitimately comparable is beyond my current knowledge.

To toss out something on the presuppositional level, I have no problems with saying that Genesis cosmology is etiological and mythical. Likewise, I have no problems with saying that there is myth in the Bible.

Okay. And therefore, the literal occurence of Genesis 1 is the basis for the purity system. I am not aware of a single etiology that proposes that the cause wasn't an actuality. It seems to me that all you are really doing is attempting to show a correlation between Genesis 1 and the purity system (something I am not sure of, but would entertain the idea to determine a valid conclusion; it seems plausible enough to me right now). But the fact that you're calling it etiological undermines your very position that Genesis 1 isn't literal.

Hence, problem 1 and 2. I'm not sure (don't know enough) how one would go about determining that the OTHER literature used wasn't supposedly historical or not.

Alternatively, you could argue that it's function is both to undergird the purity system AND give an account of the unfolding cosmos. I can't imagine how that might go, but then again, I couldn't imagine (until research) how the argument in the OP might go. But I think you'd find, regardless of the conclusion, that the purity system is of far greater importance than an account of the unfolding cosmos.

[magus]

What I'm trying to say is that the Bible isn't the only source of information concerning the world of the ANE. Archaelogical as well as extra-biblical literary sources are also available. While the Bible is the most reliable, this doesn't mean the other sources are UNreliable.

The presumption given to any historical source material is that it purports to tell the truth, unless proven otherwise (either internally or externally). Hence, if Tom Clancy's novels were to be discovered a thousand years from now, either
(1) The copyright page specifying "this is a work of fiction" remains [internal]
or (2) John Patrick Ryan was never POTUS [an example of external]

The Genesis account from 1-50 reads as a straight historical narrative, suggesting the author meant for it to be read that way. That's what exegesis is, reading OUT of the text, rather that INTO the text. cf ICR, AiG, etc.

There is no internal evidence in the Bible that anybody ever saw Genesis 1 as anything other than historical truth and fact. The external evidence is, obviously, the major squabble between evolution and special creation.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[BronzeArcher]

There is no internal evidence in the Bible that anybody ever saw Genesis 1 as anything other than historical truth and fact.
I'm questioning that, but I don't see why there would be some kind of disclaimer. You would be both clearer and relevant if you got down to discussing Genesis by literary crit, or whatever comparitive methods. Asserting that it "reads as a straight historical narrative" without ever going beyond "I think it reads like a historical narrative" will remain irrelevant to normative questions.

[magus]

Like I said... AiG, ICR and other reputable YEC sites/publications have an embarassment of riches in that department. If you're interested, moseydown to

<eep... can't advertise web sites>

AiG stands for AnswersinGenesis, and ICR is Institute for Creation Research. Both are organisations that promote plain reading of Genesis, especially Genesis 1. There, I think you can figure out their web site addresses...

Love in Christ,
Magus

[BronzeArcher]

Some of that is totally foreign to me (stuff about verbs and etc). I'm not a good enough OT expositor to know what's BS and what isn't. But so far no real argument has been made against the OP--not surprisingly, since OT and ancient culture stuff is not something common.

Personally, I'm pretty suspicious about YEC sites. It shouldn't be hard to tell me, "well, here's a book you can look into for this" but maybe there aren't enough YECs into biblical scholarship that they'd say so.

[magus]

Well, OK. Basically, what YECs (Young Earth Creationist) do is this. They start out by assuming that the Bible (specifically, Genesis, esp Gen 1) is a 100% accurate account of how the universe and all that is within (space/time continuum, matter & energy) came into being. Then they look at the evidence (astronomy, biology, archaeology, paleontology, etc etc etc) and see whether the evidence can be interpreted according to the framework as set out in the Bible.

As you can imagine, this rather upsets the uniformitarians and Old-Earthers. Especially when the evidence points rather more clearly to the Genesis account rather than man-made accounts.

The question I would like to ask is this. A plain reading of Genesis from beginning to end should convince you that it is (or purports to be) a historical narrative. It starts from the beginning, progresses through, gives timelines and significant events, and ends with the Israelites in Egypt.

So, what evidence do you have to support your thesis? Remember that the burden of proof rests on the MODERN reader, rather than the ANCIENT text. Go ahead. Ask any reputable historian. He'll tell you that unless you can demonstrably prove a particular text wrong, it is automatically presumed to be right. This is, if you like, akin to 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Genesis 1 says God did it in 7 days. The Mosaic laws of the covenant say God did it in 7 days. Jesus says He came to prove the Scriptures. Paul says All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for INSTRUCTION. What proof do you have otherwise?

Love in Christ,
Magus

[betzerg]

I was discussing with another member here and I was asked why I didn't write essay-length posts. Well, here's a small one cut from a topic @ Christianforums.com (CF for short). I had some blurb against some bad YEC rhetoric (like constantly asking if I believed in absolute truth) and begging questions, so I'll leave that out.

---

My thesis is that Genesis cosmology functions as the cosmological basis for the entire Jewish purity system (or at least very much of it).

The topic of purity is a pretty fundamental socio-cultural one. Purity deals with order. The structure of all of life. Objects, people, times, and seasons--they all have their proper place. Everyone has their own purity system, however developed or inherited from society.

David deSilva says, (David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, p.243)

"Purity codes are a way of talking about what is proper for a certain place and a certain time (however one's society fills in the content). Pollution is a label attached to whatever is out of place with regard to the society's view of an orderly and safe world. Purity has to do with drawing the lines that give definition to the world around us, distinguishing, for example, what belongs to an individual from what belongs to others, and then defending these lines from being crosed by unwelcome forces."

A modern illustration is 'dirt'. (ibid. This illustration was originally used by Mary Douglas in Purity and Danger, 1966.) If there is some dirt in the middle of the living room, we will remove it--it is not supposed to be there and hence is pollution. The modern use of "pollution" refers to chemicals and waste that damage the environment. Environment in the anthropological sense refers the purity system. However, we have no problems with dirt being in the garden, outside. We believe that is the proper place for dirt. Our rationale for this is mainly medical. Dirt, of course, is dirty. We would much rather sleep in a clean bed than a dirty one.

With that groundwork of understanding purity, we can look at the Jewish purity system, with it's distinctions of clean vs unclean, holy vs profane/common. From a cursory reading of Genesis 1, one may note neat divisions of creation (read: purity maps). The dividing agents are the 'days'. Whether the days are supposed to be 24-hr periods or not does not impact my thesis. Anthropologist Mary Douglas gives these parallels and explanation between Genesis and Leviticus:

"The dietary laws systematically pick up the order of creation in Genesis. In Genesis 1, the first two days of creation set up the four cardinal points and the next four days are spent putting living denizens into the earth, sky, and water and putting the lights of the starts and planets into the sky. Genesis:

* First two days: 1.1-10. Creation of Light, Earth, Firmament and Water. Compare the four elements, fire, earth, air and water in other philosophies in Asia Minor.
* Third day: 1.11-13. Vegetation on the earth.
* Fourth day: 1.14-19. Stars in the heavenly firmament for signs and for seasons, for days and years, creation of the sun and the moon.
* Fifth day: 1.20-23. Filling the waters with moving creatures that have life.
* Sixth day: 1.24-31. Populating the earth with all kinds of living creatures, and creation of humankind to have dominion over them.

Compare with Leviticus' list of prohibited animal foods:

* On the earth (Lev. 11.2-8)
* In the waters (Lev. 11.9-12)
* In the air (Lev. 11.13-25)

In these three environments the book goes on systematically to distinguish clean and unclean creatures. On the earth, among quadrupeds, if they do not cleave the hoof like domestic herds and flocks, they cannot be eaten; even if they do not cleave the hoof but do chew the cud, or if they do cleave the hoof but do not chew the cud, they are unclean. In the waters fish with scales and fins are clean, but not the rest. In the air clean two-winged creatures are those that can walk and hop on the earth."
- Mary Douglas, "The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus", Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 59, 1993, p. 16

---

What this leads one towards, in the realm of ancient lit., is understanding that Genesis cosmology cannot faithfully be interpreted scientifically. It is not intended to give a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe, but it is etiological; the undergirding of their entire (or a large percent of) purity system.

Now... who wants cookies?


UMMM>>>>Only if they're Kosher.

Very insightful!!!

Judaism teaches that the account of creation in Genesis is much more a poetic account than a scientific one. What is being expressed is that yes, G-d is the designer of the world. Genesis creates order and while conveying the very MIRACLE of our existence. Genesis is NEVEr to be used as a scientific PROOF. Beginning with the six days of creation...and rest on the seventh day...the order of G-d is established.
Separation and sanctification....in fact, the very HOLINESS of G-d is revealed in this account.

Kosher is not about "laws"...it's about understanding G-d's intent for what is to be considered "food"...and what is not considered food. Scavengers are never to be a food source for human beings. And there are reasons why!
Every read about the effects of PORK on the human body. OY VEY!!!!!

Shalom,

BETZER

[A Beautiful Truth]

Judaism teaches that the account of creation in Genesis is much more a poetic account than a scientific one. What is being expressed is that yes, G-d is the designer of the world. Genesis creates order and while conveying the very MIRACLE of our existence. Genesis is NEVEr to be used as a scientific PROOF. Beginning with the six days of creation...and rest on the seventh day...the order of G-d is established.
Separation and sanctification....in fact, the very HOLINESS of G-d is revealed in this account.

Please, do you have references? This is a topic of great interest to me and I'd like to hear from this perspective.

I lean towards taking Adam as literal but since the Garden account is so symbolic, not taking that as literal. What do you say?

Hey, why don't you come over to Cosmogony sometime? It's open to all theists.

~Charleen

[BronzeArcher]

So, what evidence do you have to support your thesis? Remember that the burden of proof rests on the MODERN reader, rather than the ANCIENT text. Go ahead. Ask any reputable historian. He'll tell you that unless you can demonstrably prove a particular text wrong, it is automatically presumed to be right. This is, if you like, akin to 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Genesis 1 says God did it in 7 days. The Mosaic laws of the covenant say God did it in 7 days. Jesus says He came to prove the Scriptures. Paul says All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for INSTRUCTION. What proof do you have otherwise?

I really can't respond to you because we have very little common ground to proceed on. It would need to begin with basic methodological assumptions, some immediately relevant epistemology, and only then could we discuss at the floor (whatever number it is, 4th, 5th) you are trying to proceed from.

But we likely have some very fundamental differences which need to be discussed, otherwise we'd just be talking at each other without real communication.

Right now you're giving bad YEC rhetoric along the lines of asking me if I believe in absolute truth. =\ That's a signal to me that no communication is taking place.

[magus]

I'm game if you are. You list your assumptions and I'll list mine.

I can tell you what my underlying axioms are straight off.

1. The Bible in its autograph forms is inerrant.
2. The Bible as it currently exists in translated form as well as manuscript copy form is very close to its autograph forms (For argument's sake, I quote 95% but it may be higher than that).
3. As an ancient text, unless there is either internal or external proof otherwise, the Bible is to be given the benefit of the doubt. So, if the Bible says something happened, that something is presumed to have happened when it is said to have happened.
4. Language styles and forms can be used to detect form of literary genre. Thus, Genesis which reads as a plain historical narrative can be considered as such.
5. When facts are discovered that correspond to a manuscript's accounting, that increases the manuscript's presumed reliability in other areas where evidence is not available.
6. The Bible is to be preferred over all other source texts as its reliability is far higher evidenced.

Now, obviously, some of these presuppositions can be tested, and others cannot. BUt there you are.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[BronzeArcher]

4. Language styles and forms can be used to detect form of literary genre. Thus, Genesis which reads as a plain historical narrative can be considered as such.

You are already begging the question here. Discussion of methodology would include how should one determine genre. Out of curiosity, would you take Esther to be a historical narrative?

I have also learned not to say "the Bible" when discussing issues of historical reliability. This may be a symptom of a major point of difference. I simply cannot throw in all books (whatever canon) as being "preferrered". Further, I have yet to look into the minimalist vs maximalist debate, so I will refrain from commenting there.

Lastly, you might as well say if you intend to contend with the OP in any direct way. You are asserting dogma as far as I can see.

[magus]

Yes, I would consider Esther to be historical narrative.

And, what do you want me to do? I mean, how else would one determine genre? If a modern text speaks of lasers, plasma cannons and railguns, it's probably either SF or a speculative text theorising what might happen in military technology over the next century. If it's talking about dragons, fireballs and artefacts of power, it's probably either fantasy or a treatise on Middle Ages belief. The major determinant is whether it's fiction or non-fiction.

The Bible is held to be non-fiction in the main. Therefore, the book of Genesis, which describes events in a linear fashion beginning from the beginning, and in chronological order tracing through to the end, where the Israelites are in Egypt, is a historical narrative. How can that be begging the question? How?

And your OP states your thesis, mainly,
What this leads one towards, in the realm of ancient lit., is understanding that Genesis cosmology cannot faithfully be interpreted scientifically. It is not intended to give a factual, historical account of the unfolding universe, but it is etiological; the undergirding of their entire (or a large percent of) purity system.
And I have just said that it IS intended to give a factual, historical account, BECAUSE it's written in such a fashion!!!! Therefore, Genesis cosmology CAN be and IS faithfully BEING interpreted SCIENTIFICALLY, and people are making MAJOR progress on many fields because they do! Could I be any clearer than that?

Love in Christ,
Magus

p.s. Proof is available from AiG, ICR, even Tektonics.org, if you should be interested.

[BronzeArcher]

If a modern text speaks of lasers, plasma cannons and railguns, it's probably either SF or a speculative text theorising what might happen in military technology over the next century.

You still aren't getting at the methodological issues. You would say that a given text is sci-fi or speculation because you have prior experience of it. If we are to accept your criteria, a future reader may consider them history, abeit full of errors and wild, legendary developments.

My problem with your 'argument' is that it is not even trying. I don't even consider it as presenting any evidence. Verisimilitude is something that you aren't even considering. I figured you'd think Esther is a historical narrative; the criteria you emply can't distinguish between ancient fiction and ancient historiography. :shrug:

By "contend with the OP" I do not mean foist growing arguments against it's thesis; I mean more of an attempt to undercut the argument presented.