frankispeakin:
No, that is not what my argument implies.(As a side point I will say this; In understanding prophecy some are not ment to be understood right away and some are), and as far as the point I am making it has nothing to do with the "primeval" history in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
But that is the point frankie; you are quite happy to accept that some parts of the Bible were not meant to be understood when they were written when it suits your argument. Yet when it doesn't suit your argument you insist that it had to be comprehensible to those who read it.
"Why were the creation accounts not written the same way?" It's obvious, different purposes, different intent, utilize different genre, to fit the different intent and purposes. You want to oversimplify everything, which is illogical, and leads to illogical conclusions.
Illogical? You're the one changing their standards of evidence on whim!
I want people to be consistant. To assume god encodes prohecy so its inspiration can be revealed in due time, and doesn't encode prehistory in the same way (with the result that rather than revealing inspiration when decoded with modern knowledge it undermines the Bible's reliability) requires something other than you just saying it isn't so.
There are no points in the Bible where it says 'okay, the next chapter is symbolic guys', its just you asserting that some bits are and some bits aren't. Do you have a secret decoder ring?
You are playing with a stacked deck though; and the cards are stacked against you. By deduction, god would KNOW that the discrepancies between the Bible's prehistory and the verifiable facts would result in people turning away from the Bible as a source of information, using their supposedly god-given intellect to come to the conclusion that such a flawed book cannot possibly be inspired.
I can't see a way out of this conumdrum;
- the human mind will deduce something that doesn't match with reality is false or fanciful,
- god by deliberate ommision failed to provide physical proof of existence or an obviously inspired book for humans that would prove its existence,
- so if we don't believe, it is god's fault,
- god knows how our minds work,
- god is characterised as loving,
- and for god to allow people to die in ignorance because they don't believe in god because there is no evidence contradicts this loving characterisation.
Logically, it is GOD's fault we don't believe; of course, you will see the story of the Israelites as an example of how people can ignore god even when they KNOW it is real (assuming the stories are true).
But I can see the story of the Israelites as a perfect little propoganda piece to allow a Priest class authority and instill fear into people. Even if it were not true, it would be logical to write such a piece if you wanted then to be obediant - a grown-up version of parents telling them the boogie man will get them if they are not good. And it is still 'unafir', ( if you assume it is true) as the Israelites KNEW God existed and ignored him; modern man do not KNOW god exists, and you shrugging your shoulders over the question of fairness is not particulary the standard I would expect from a loving and perfect god or their representatives.
The primary focus of the Genesis account of creation, is not provide proof of divine authorship, it's a preamble to the law contract.
So you say, but then you contradict yourself...
The Israelites were entering into a contract with him and needed to know clearly the greatness of God, that he was the creator of everything, this is what Genesis the first chapter accomplishes magnificently.
You clearly state that they "needed to know clearly the greatness of God, that he was the creator of everything,".
So, which is it? First you say Genesis ISN'T to prove God is creator, then you say it IS. Are you saying that it is possible for the creator not to be divine? 'Cause you are either implying that or contradicting yourself and actually agreeing with me.
I have to say I agree that the purpose of Genesis IS to prove that God is creator, and that it fails this miserably. WHo you agree with, well, maybe you will give your statements some needed clarification.
I thought from your post 9/24/ 08:44 you didn't want me to critique it, or that it wasn't nessarry.
Well, now you know I do, and I notice you still haven't, which I will assume is a passive acceptance of the fact Genesis could be put in terms suitable for a Bronze Age audienece that would at the same time reveal divine authoership (or if you like, allow "people to know clearly the greatness of God, that he was the creator of everything") when read by a modern audience. You asserted this wasn't so, I've given an example which I believe shows that it would be possible, and that stands unrebutted by you.
I'm sorry Frankie, as it stands your arguement is evasive and contradictory.
