Challenging tradition

[P31Woman]

No, the ancient near eastern stories predate Genesis, I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary. He doesn't deny inspiration, you just have to read his books to see that. He just has a different take on what inspiration means. As for inerrancy, depends on what you mean by inerrancy.

Depends on how you define Jesus, God, Christan, Scholar,....................Word games

 

[P31Woman]

No, the ancient near eastern stories predate Genesis, I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary. He doesn't deny inspiration, you just have to read his books to see that. He just has a different take on what inspiration means. As for inerrancy, depends on what you mean by inerrancy.

Part of John Frame's review of this book.

I have heard and read a lot of reflection about the parallels between Israel’s laws and narratives to those outside Israel. Israel’s laws are somewhat like those of the Code of Hammurabi; non-Israelite nations have their own creation stories and flood stories, their own wisdom literatures, which are both like and unlike those in the Bible. Perhaps there have been some evangelicals who have found these parallels problematic, but I think not very many. The fact that non-Israelite traditions are different, even older, does not prove or even suggest that there are any defects in the biblical versions.

God wanted his people to have a well-functioning legal system, geared to its life in its ancient environment. For this purpose, there was no need to re-invent the wheel. The Code of Hammurabi and other ancient codes addressed that same need, in similar cultures, and so it should be no surprise that God’s laws reflected the legal tradition of which Hammurabi’s Code was an instance. Moses, or some source he made use of, may well have found in a pre-existing set of laws, statutes that would fit Israel’s situation. The traditional doctrine of organic inspiration says that there is no contradiction between divine inspiration and human efforts to determine the right thing to say. The former often makes use of the latter.

Similarly, God wanted Israel to know something about the creation and flood. If we assume that these events actually happened, it is not surprising that the literature of non-Israelite nations bear witness to them. And it is not surprising that God would inspire Moses to give Israel true accounts, or that these accounts are like the others in some respects. These accounts are similar, not only because they presuppose similar literary conventions, but also because they are describing the same event. Here too it would not be contrary to the doctrine of organic inspiration to believe that Moses depended on pre-existing sources from other nations.

Enns asks, “if the Bible reflects these ancient customs and practices, in what sense can we speak of it as revelation?†(31) I reply, why not? It is revelation because it’s God’s word and therefore true. It’s like asking, “Luke and Josephus both speak of Jesus, so how can Luke be revelation?†Easy. Luke is an inspired apostle and Josephus is not. Is Enns attributing to some the view that a book cannot be revelation unless it reveals an entirely unique culture? I know nobody who says that, and such a view would be so implausible as to be undeserving of refutation. Maybe this is Enns’ own point, that a document can be God’s word even if it doesn’t reflect or establish a unique culture. But I can’t imagine why he thought this needed to be argued.

 

[P31Woman]

Frame's response to Enns on Myths

On 40, he suggests that “myth” might be a good description of the biblical stories, since it is a common way of referring to the non-Israelite flood stories. He defines myth as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?” (40) This is rather different from many definitions of myth, but I will let that pass. In this definition and in its context, Enns intentionally avoids the question of whether these stories relate what “really happened.” But that is of course the issue. Certainly the biblical stories fit this definition of myth. Indeed, if you drop the term “origins” from the definition, all the stories of the Bible fit this definition. The Resurrection of Jesus addresses the question of our ultimate meaning in the form of a story. But the Bible itself insists that the Resurrection story, in addition to addressing the question of our ultimate meaning, tells us something that really happened. Indeed, the Resurrection would not be effective in declaring our ultimate meaning if it had not really happened. Enns’ definition of myth avoids the question of whether these stories narrate real history, and in doing so it avoids the most important problem raised in this connection.

The major problem is not the word “myth,” though the apostolic comment in 2 Pet. 1:16 (and the general perception that, contrary to Enns’ definition, myth excludes historicity) should lead us at least to hesitate in using it. The problem is that to call the Genesis flood a myth and then to adopt Enns’ definition of myth is to gloss over one of the main questions people have in examining that story. He raises a non-issue (How can a revealed book be culturally conditioned?) and avoids a real issue (Did the flood actually take place?)

 

[Grazer]

This is likely to be my last post on the subject and indeed the forum so its fitting its discussing someone who's only crime is to dare to take a different angle on the bible.

Peter Enns doesn't need me to defend him, he's quite willing to take on his critics himself;

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...er-critical-reviews/a-response-to-paul-helms/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...critical-reviews/a-response-to-richard-pratt/

These are 2 I've found where he's posted the lecture in full so you can see the context in full. My advice is, if you disagree with him go tell him. I've emailed him before and got responses and I wasn't agreeing with him.

And with that....over and out!

 

[P31Woman]

This is likely to be my last post on the subject and indeed the forum so its fitting its discussing someone who's only crime is to dare to take a different angle on the bible.

Peter Enns doesn't need me to defend him, he's quite willing to take on his critics himself;

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...er-critical-reviews/a-response-to-paul-helms/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/petere...critical-reviews/a-response-to-richard-pratt/

These are 2 I've found where he's posted the lecture in full so you can see the context in full. My advice is, if you disagree with him go tell him. I've emailed him before and got responses and I wasn't agreeing with him.

And with that....over and out!

I've not attacked you. I am trying to debate your believe that inspiration of scripture is a "tradition" the Church needs to leave behind. So far you have not been able to defend your stand. What you have posted are beliefs of men who love to destroy the clear teachings of scripture.

You claim to stand on scripture but I don't believe you have posted even one in your defense/position/stand.

 

[P31Woman]

What I see in this thread is a "doctrine" not a "tradition" that is being challanged.

That is nothing new.

 

[John 8:32]

What's the problem with Christmas and Easter?

Observing either is by the tradition of the the Catholic church. There are no commands, there are a couple of references though...

Jer 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
Jer 10:3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
Jer 10:4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jer 10:5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Eze 8:13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
Eze 8:14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
Eze 8:15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
Eze 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

You might take a look at this...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia and the Quarto Decimani

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No, the ancient near eastern stories predate Genesis, I'd love to see your evidence to the contrary.

The Genesis creation account owes nothing to the creation myths of Egypt and Mesopotamia, or any other creation myth. The latter were written for a completely different purpose. http://davelivingston.com/corancienttexts.htm

They are not really about the creation of the universe at all. They are related to the "genesis" of a certain king's reign. http://davelivingston.com/sonsofgod.htm

Priest-scribes wrote them to establish the king's (and his god's) supremacy. http://davelivingston.com/opiate.htm

The links provided tend to disparage the Genesis account as well, but scholars opposed to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 still agree that the other cultures followed the Genesis map to concoct their myths.