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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

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

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,

 

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?

 

:thumbs:This is exactly where I was heading.

 

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.

 

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

HankD

 

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.

 

Nope

Trying to pit certainty against truth is just silly

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

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

[/QUOTE]

 

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).

 

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.

 

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

(BTW... that is a quotable there)

 

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

Cheers.

 

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!

 

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.