I have noticed this after learning a little in history lessons, and reading a few historians, that the stories from Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Macedonia, Rome - these mighty empires with their wealth, class systems, philosophers etc., - not one of their stories has survived or can be rendered as authentic. Yet records are found, evidence of their historical nature abound.
I reckon that too little credit is paid to humanity’s sense of what is authentic. Genesis has been discussed and analysed and debated for thousands of years, and it remains with us as it was written many centuries ago. If any other book or work were to have a similar history and impact, we would be astounded - but critics will continue to make their irrational comments notwithstanding.
Whatever perhaps the order of writing the books (JEDP or whatever) and how the books were redacted, the Exodus (whether 5000 or 2 M people) seems like the center-point of the old testament. Where they got their material and how they stitched it together would be difficult for me to say, but it seems like very little of the old testament or its structure makes much sense without the Exodus taking the center-stage; even if it was written (or more likely assembled) after writing Samuel. The first books of Gen are definitely the most disparate and jarring in structure and content.
Perhaps this is basically what you are saying also, but maybe here especially, it might be better to avoid the word “story”, unless it really fits. Some people are likely to misinterpret “story” to mean “make believe”. I would argue that it might be better to use the word “narrative”; it doesn’t carry so much extra “baggage”.
Even for the case of Noah, which probably requires a very broad paint brush on interpretation, there were enough massive floods in Sumeria that it seems like one of them may have been the origin of that narrative. I’d cut the writers a lot of slack, but there has to be an impetus for such a narrative.
When I wrote this post, I was getting confused between my Unitarian Universalist “hat” (which is very much like a Disney hate with a propeller) … and my more serious and strident BioLogos hat (which is a live baby crocodile).
Narrative is much better than story.
And Exodus is certainly the center point of the whole epoch timeline.
Ironically, there is a True Story of Napoleon almost drowning when he crossed a part of the Red Sea (twice!) with his cavalry guard. So there is really much better basis for Exodus than for Noah’s story.
Virtually any regional flood is sufficient to inspire a narrative about a giant flood. So there’s no trick to that. While there are one or two here who ardently feel it was written as a regional flood, and then it degenerated into a global story … I think it was written from the “get-go” as a global flood - - because nobody loads up a giant boat with animals and spends a year sitting out a regional flood. Moving to higher ground is usually the right course of action, yes?
For me, the most valuable clue to the sequencing of when books were written (vs. the time period the book discussed) was the oddities of the Ark’s reception into the midst of the Hebrew tribes. The general situation is all twisted out of recognition: the Levites don’t immediately take control of the ark. Despite the supposed long history about the lethality of the Ark, people mishandle it and die. And the Ark is not reunited with the Tabernacle of the Covenant … not for some 40 years … and it looks like it never is. Instead, it is kept in a new tent. And then eventually installed into the new temple.
Rumor has it that Caleb’s grandchildren used the old Tabernacle as an awesome Assyrian tree fort !..
What’s interesting about the Ark’s exit from the Philistine coast is that the Mycenaean/Hellene tradition included sending a sacred wagon, guided by religious artifacts, out into the country, to see where another temple should be built.
Now what happens if the senders lose the wagon? Or someone takes he wagon? Hmmmm sounds like a good Narrative!
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:51, topic:35794, full:true”]What is the Peleg Theory? I’m not up on all the latest YEC fantasies.
[/quote]
I shouldn’t have called it a “theory”; it’s more a hypothesis. It says that all land was gathered in a monolithic continent until 750 years after Noah’s Flood, at which point the land mass was “divided” into a fragmented arrangement. It’s based on Genesis 10:25 and 1 Chronicles 1:19.
As one can tell from my discussions, I have always had to presume at least a partial Peleg Hypothesis when trying to reconcile the pattern of mammalian occupation of Australia.
And, naturally, you and I haven’t even discussed how consistent a full or partial hypothesis would be with an analysis of the continental plate geology with such dramatic movements all less than 6000 years ago.
Just another example of Creationists interpreting the world based on a few lines of scripture, instead of reams of scientific findings.
As I mentioned previously, it is even a stretch to use the word “hypothesis” associated with Peleg. Both of these verses actually say the exact same thing, so let’s check out the source:
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
Hypotheses are based on a limited amount of beginning evidence. Would you agree that it is an incredible stretch to “hypothesize” that “for in his days the earth was divided” = “continents began separating from one another at astonishing rates of speed”? I have to agree with @gbrooks9, it seems logically inconsistent to deny overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the theory of evolution while at the same time using “in his days the earth was divided” as a sufficient explanation for observed phenomena.
That’s odd, as I don’t know of any creationists who don’t reject objective facts and major aspects of operational science.
Edit: Todd Wood is an exception to the rule. But he admits that creationism isn’t supported by the demonstrable scientific facts.
How would you support your negative claim, given your oft-stated lack of scientific knowledge and understanding?[quote=“Dredge, post:24, topic:35794”]
Creationists certainly reject the theory that all life has a common ancestor, which I suspect is of no scientific consequence, because I suspect this theory is scientifically useless.
[/quote]
I would like to see a response to Wayne’s reply to your claim.
One: All field evidence would refute the Peleg scenario.
Two: The Peleg scenario doesn’t actually solve any questions, because the Peleg scenario is still inadequate to the problem of understanding the distinctive history of Australia (and New Zealand).
Three: Just another log in the fire for proving you are not actually an Old Earther as you have claimed you are.