You sound like a fan of the “Pesher” method of scripture writing … where the more ecstatic interpretations of a single Bible text is - - MIRACULOUSLY!! - - applicable to TWO different times … and two different sets of people.
This was common with the early Church - - a technique borrowed from Jewish bible interpretations.
The most famous is the test that SUPPOSEDLY prophecies the virgin birth of Jesus. But in fact, that text is 700 years old and was written SPECIFICALLY for that period…
You actually DO seem to be insisting that without the historicity of the story of Exodus … then the death of Jesus would be meaningless.
You appear to be a good Evangelical. Nothing can dissuade you.
This is an interesting question to ask @gbrooks9, because (if I understood correctly) George believes that the whole Bible is genuine as an intricate slush puppy containing history, myth, poetry, and more! That position makes it difficult to point out any specific portion that can be considered “straightforward”.
What I’m saying is that the New Testament documents were written banking on the Exodus, the story of Jesus is framed around Exodus and Exile, and the New Testament cannot be fully understood without recognizing that underlying framework.
If the Exodus is a fiction, that casts a lot of doubt about the conclusions drawn in the New Testament about Jesus.
The New Testament is our primary textual source of Jesus. What is it about him that you know and from where does it come?
“An intricate slush puppy containing history, myth, poetry, and more!” <<< That is a truly outstanding way to describe my views! Nice work, Casper !
@GJDS, It is not lost on me that my views on Bible historicity (especially on the Old Testament chronology) are not exactly mainstream. So when I saw Jonathan’s postings on Genesis being post-Exilic in composition, I thought that was a pretty exciting and dramatic development!!!
I once had an ongoing discussion with another amateur Bible scholar … who ALSO didn’t like my views on the Persian influence on Jewish views. He fought me on virtually every point - - and yet ironically, he ALSO believed that the entire bible was written while in Babylonian Exile.
I pointed out that there are not that many of us who believe this timetable. And that the Persian phase of the Exile was relatively quick in coming!
The Babylonian exiles occurred in 597 BCE, 587/586 BCE, and 582/581 BCE. The Persians conquered the Babylonians in 539 BCE. So this was only 42 years after the last Jewish arrivals in exile !!! But for some reason, some writers find it HIGHLY DISTURBING to think pagan influence on the Jewish scribes would extend into the Persian period … even if only by a generation … but if limited to ONLY the Babylonian phase - - it is perfectly acceptable. Go figure.
It’s my personal opinion that more and more scholarship is focusing on Biblical composition being made AFTER 597 BCE at the very least.
So it may not be too surprising to hear that the part of the Old Testament that I find most reliable is the aggregation of text we find in Nehemia and Ezra!
But even that is complicated. David J.A. Clines of the University of Sheffield has recently published a paper: “How Corrupt is the Text of the Hebrew Bible?: An Empirical Approach from Ezra 2 || Nehemiah 7”. (Paper in the Working with Biblical Manuscripts (Textual Criticism) section of the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Buenos Aires, 21 July 2015.) It’s in the Academia system for those interested in easy access to the article.
What he shows is that even with an incredibly RECENT set of Biblical writings (Ezra & Nehemia) … the two writers contradict each other at every turn. So in many ways one of the reasons that people have such high confidence in the so-called OLDER books of the Old Testament is because there is just ONE version of the writing - - and thus can avoid contradiction!
But even here, Chronicles provides all sorts of problems for the main narrative from Genesis to Kings.
While coming in late, that is an interesting question. Obviously, as a Christian, I feel that what I know of Christ is what I have learned through the help of the Holy Spirit and the relationship I have with Christ. Some comes also through the witness of other Christians. Of course, much comes through the text of the Bible. However, I feel the Bible must be read through the lens of Christ, not Christ through the Bible. You can be a Christian without the Bible. Lots of people have proven that, both in the early church and those who are illiterate today.
That position leaves me somewhat unsettled however, as it then opens the door to anyone saying whatever they want and claiming it is from the lips of God, which of course leads to abuses.
Well, there is also the issue of textual distance. The Bible was written in a patriarchal, agrarian honor culture that emphasized community and family that is a far cry from our individualistic assumptions. So, yes, you read scripture through the lens of Christ. But by default we also read it through the lenses of modernism and post-modernism, through individualism, industrialization, globalism, etc., etc., etc.
In the context of this conversation, many times we are blind to Jewish understandings and expectations vis à vis Exodus, messianic expectation, Covenant, return from Exile, Torah, etc.
I must agree with you that the Exodus is actual history. I am also Trinitarian even though I believe George is all right as a person. I just disagree with his Christology. I hope everyone is enjoying the discussion and that there are no hard feelings. Yes, Jesus is divine and always has been God the Son. The Son simply took upon himself a human nature. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all equal. Jesus is 100% God and 100% human.
I agree with you, Christy. There is nothing wrong with anyone here. I also believe that @gbrooks9 and @GJDS are good people. They have a right to their opinions.
Instead of adding more to what (in a scholastic authoritative sense), would amount to further ramblings, I will share my experiences (such a long time ago) when I tried to obtain more scholastic opinion on one of my favourite piece of literature, Homer’s poetry. I had little difficulty in accepting translations from Greek into English - even though much of the poetic content was lost, nor was I worried about some of the imaginary portrayed (things may look different to an English person). However I had to laugh when I obtained opinions on the existence of Troy - these ranged from “no, there was no Troy, it is all imagined and embedded in fragments that later became Homer”, to “we found some remains of a village at such and such a place, but it doe not correspond to Homer’s Troy”, to “wow, we have the genuine site and it is everything Homer said it was”. These three statements are summaries of impressions I formed and not quotes Needless to say, they cannot all be correct!
So you may understand why I treat your remarks with tongue in cheek.
I am nonetheless flabbergasted to learn that such people put aside national identities, and writings that have been preserved with enormous effort, and at times against fierce opposition, in favour of flights of fancy and often self-contradictions. The example of Homer will not generate much heat, but when the Bible is discussed, it seems that any opinion, no matter how silly, magically becomes relevant and “well researched by a nobody”.
gbrooks9
(George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))
71
I think Homer is a nice parallel … We have a rather large collection of legend… and what looks like historically authentic details… But this doesn’t mean there was really a Zeus or divine intervention in a Greek or Anatolian world.
For me, my own personal “awakening” regarding the Bible was when I finally said to myself:
So what was REALLY going on here?
Was there a flood?
Was there an ark and cherubim?
In an ancient world full of deities … what WAS this Yahweh?
And I kept asking myself questions.
In some cases, I think I found some pretty good answers. But these answers are only possible if the Earth was NOT created in 6 days.
You just divert the discussion - my point was to show that so called expert opinion has been shown to be wrong, and yet people, including yourself, simply skip over this, and instead continue with their obsession. The facts in Homer include the religious outlooks of he Hellenics. Instead, liberal, self-proclaimed authorities begin by denying Troy and all that is related to this - when they are shown to be wrong, they (and you) turn to other matters (religion) to try and save your position.
This is a “furfy” - it is undeniable that Homer includes the Greek gods and the belief and practices of the Hellenics. This is historically verified.
If you wish to debate the religious beliefs of Hellenics, that is another topic. You cannot draw so called parallels and legends by avoiding historical facts.
@GJDS@gbrooks9
I deleted some stuff.
Don’t make negative generalizations about entire denominations, please.
Everyone is entitled to express an opinion without being harassed about their credentials or identity. Everyone is also free to ignore opinions they think are ridiculous.
I agree with you. The OT is about the Mosaic Covenant, which also includes other covenants, between YHWH with YHWH’s people the Jews. The NT is about New Covenant of Jesus Christ between God and God’s new people, the Church.
We do not understand our proper relationship with God when we fail to understand the social and covenantal aspect of the New Covenant. Also we make the New Covenant legalistic as you have done, when you overlook the covenantal aspect of the Old Covenant.
The Exodus is evidence that YHWH honored the covenant YHWH made with Abraham. We need to keep the promises we make to YHWH. God makes a Way, even when there is no way.
I do not mean this in a bad way, but why do you always say what the Gehenna? Isn’t that as bad as using the Anglo-Saxon word? What is the difference? Do you say what the Gehenna in your church? God bless and have a good day. Also, I do not believe that you made the New Covenant legalistic. I had nothing to do with that conversation; on the contrary, I was just agreeing with you. From what I can see from your talks with Roger, I do not find that your discussion opposing each other is necessary. Aren’t you both saying the same thing? Perhaps I have missed something. Yes, I believe that the Exodus did in fact occur. It happened in my opinion either in 1445 BC with King Tutmose, who may have opposed Moses, or with Rameses in 1290 BC, who may have been the one to oppose Moses. I believe that the tribulation during the Exodus with the plagues foreshadows the Tribulation to come before the Second Coming of Christ. Moses foreshadows the coming Jesus Christ, who is the true Son of God. I believe the New Israel, which is the church, will be here during the Tribulation but it will be protected by God. You see, I am a historic premillennialist. Middel, is that a German name? Again, God’s blessings.
Needless to say, they cannot all be correct!
