BBS Genesis
Introduction
What is for the most part an exact
copy of the script follows. There are a
few places where individual speakers could neither be heard nor understood: for
this we apologize. Every effort was made
to be precise: there were just spots that defeated us. Since this is a quote in its entirety it
seemed unnecessary to mark it with quotation marks. The notation for each speaker is tedious
enough: Narrator, Reader, etc. If you
discover bothersome errors please reply to this Blog and point them out. You may verify the script more easily by
starting to replay it where the “time” stamps indicate discussion begins. The second of the above links is free from
advertising and thus easier to use.
http://swantec-oti.blogspot.com/
This is just a disgusting
hatchet-job on the concepts of history, historicity, how credibility is
developed from artifacts,[1] how documents must be
interpreted,[2]
and devoid of any spiritual essence. If
every hint of spiritual inference is removed from the Bible on the basis of
subjective scholarly whim, half of the evidence of the Bible is deleted before
we begin.
Script
Genesis
(time 11:45)
Cahill: This is a new idea. It was an idea that nobody had ever had
before. God in our sense doesn’t exist
before Abraham.[3]
N: It is hard to appreciate today how radical
an idea this must have been in a world dominated by polytheism, the worship of
many God’s and idols.[4] The Abraham narrative is part of the first
book of the Bible, Genesis, along with Noah and the Flood, and Adam and
Eve. Though they convey a powerful
message, to date there is no archaeology or text outside of the Bible to corroborate
them.[5]
David Ilan:[6] The farther back you go in
the biblical text, the more difficult it is to find historical material in
it. The patriarchs go back to Genesis. Genesis is for the most part a compilation of
myth, creation stories — things like that — and to find an historical core there,
is very difficult.
N: This absence of historical evidence leads
scholars to take a different approach to reading the biblical narrative. They look beyond our modern notion of fact or
fiction to ask why the Bible was written in the first place.
Dever: There is no word for history[7] in the Hebrew Bible. The biblical writers were telling stories. They were good historians. And they could, tell it the way it was, when
they wanted to. But their objective was
always something far beyond that.[8]
Commentary
The statement, “God in our sense
doesn’t exist before Abraham,” could possibly be true if man were the inventor
of god. This, however, is just idolatry
of the worst kind, idolatry dressed up in a new suit: just another version of
the Emperor’s New Clothes.[9] Moreover, Abraham is not considered a real
historic character by The Bible’s Buried Secrets. Abraham and monotheism are the inventions of
the fertile imagination of an unnamed priest and scribe, we will call P. This neo-creation took place around 500; and
in it, God did not “create the world from nothing, and all very good;” rather P
created the Torah and God ex nihilo: or so the story goes.
The fact that, “there is no
archaeology or text outside of the Bible to corroborate them,” is supposed to
discredit the historicity of Genesis.
Even so, this reasoning, thus far, is constructed on the invisible
evidence of the Merneptah Stele. We hope
that better evidence will soon be forthcoming.
The idea that a highly detailed provenance, the Bible, can be overthrown
by a few words of uncertain meaning escapes us.
Behind Genesis is a whole raft of artifacts which are here termed, “no
archaeology or text.” Figure? The Bible, especially in its ancient
manuscripts, is an archaeological artifact in its own right. Granted, the oldest extant of these manuscripts
is from the sixth century; even so, there is very little reason not to believe
that such manuscripts are copies of much older originals. Proof of this rests on the incredible
accuracy of the Bible. Virtually everything
done in biblical archaeology depends on the Bible. It is the Bible that tells archaeologists
where to look, and interprets their finds for them. Without the Bible, the archaeology of the
Holy or Promised Land would not exist.
While supporting artifacts for Genesis have not yet been discovered in
the Holy Land, the leap to none exist is a subjective assumption of the worst
kind, and assumption that flies in the face of records from Mesopotamia.
“The farther back you go in the
biblical text, the more difficult it is to find historical material in it,” may
be true for Palestine, provided that one accepts the subjective Rubric, no
artifacts equals no history.
Absurd! “Genesis is for the most
part a compilation of myth, creation stories — things like that — and to find
an historical core there, is very difficult.”
As difficult as it surely seems, this difficulty is the subjective
invention of a handful of “experts”, who believe that the authority to define
“an historical core” rests with them.
What unbridled arrogance!
This “different approach” to reading
is not reading at all, it is a most ridiculous example of higher
criticism. To “look beyond our modern
notion of fact or fiction to ask why,” is to ignore what the Bible has to say
about how and why it was written. It
should be clear that no expert has the right to destroy the evidence, tear it
to shreds, and then stitch it back together in a way that fits his/her absurd
theory. There is nothing about this
process, which could possibly be any less scientific.
That, “They were good
historians. And they could, tell it the
way it was, when they wanted to. But
their objective was always something far beyond that.” Is nothing more than a
blatant thinly-veiled claim that the caretakers of Scripture were nothing more
than a bunch of clever liars, motivated by deep, divisive, personal
agendas. The voice of Yahweh, and the
principles behind inspiration and canonicity are replaced with “their objective
was always something far beyond.” Of
course the objective was “far beyond”.
The message itself was “far beyond”.
Its author is “far beyond”.
Conclusion
This is just a disgusting
hatchet-job on the concepts of history, historicity, how credibility is
developed from artifacts,[10] how documents must be
interpreted,[11]
and devoid of any spiritual essence. If
every hint of spiritual inference is removed from the Bible on the basis of
subjective scholarly whim, half of the evidence of the Bible is deleted before
we begin.
[1]
The credibility of artifacts is developed from their provenance. Provenance does not develop from mere
artifacts. The Jews maintained their
provenance in the temple, because the artifacts themselves were not that
important to them. What was important to
the Jews, at least to some of them, was what Yahweh thought of them. So they kept their records of provenance on
file in the most holy place, in a manner similar to our use of county
courthouses. The Egyptians, on the other
hand, were totally consumed with the flesh, hence the propensity to record most
provenance directly on the monuments themselves.
[2]
Documents must be interpreted from the argument and intent of the original
author. To claim that a book like Exodus
has no single author defies the facts as presented. To perform dissections based on invented
themes is not profitable.
[3]
Note that, according to Cahill’s statement, God does not exist outside of the
mind of man.
[4] It
is a very rash assumption to suppose that the world is no longer “dominated by
polytheism.” The world was polytheistic
then, and it is polytheistic now. The
proposal that monotheism has triumphed is patently false. Even if it were true, this one god is not a
thing that I would wish to worship; it is yet another man made thing; another
idol to add to the pantheistic hoard, not different from all the other
idols. The God that I would worship is
Yahweh, Who made me, sustains me, and maintains regular conversation with me
through the Holy Ghost. This is the God
of Genesis.
[5]
There is no evidence for them outside of the Bible; therefore, they are not
historical events.
[6]
David (and Lilach) Ilan, a chair at Hebrew Union College. Works:
Tel Arad, Tel Dan, Tel Megiddo. http://huc.edu/directory/david-ilan
[7]
This is not exactly true. The specific
word, “history”, is not found in the KJV text.
On the other hand, the word, written, in one of the various past tenses
is found there, some 268 times in all, 141 of them in the Old Testament. It is not difficult to establish the modern
concept of history from these texts.
What is being contested here is the basis for history. Is history, fundamentally, the analysis of
documentation (the Bible) or is it the analysis of artifacts
(archaeology)? The Bible is decreed to
not be history on the basis of presuppositional opinion only. Many passages of the Bible exist for which
there is no external evidence whatsoever. Are they either history or not history? Argumentum ex silentio cuts both ways and proves nothing.
Archaeology cannot be used as a magical switch: one minute a Bible passage
is not historical; with the next new discovery it suddenly becomes
historical. The Bible passage didn’t
change, arbitrary subjective opinion changed.
Fundamentally, the Bible is an archaeological artifact in its own right;
it deserves the same archaeological respect and treatment as is granted to the
Merneptah Stele, or any other archaeological artifact.
Furthermore, if the Bible is to be subjected to
misinterpretation, how is it that less consistent and less reliable artifacts
are not also subjected to misinterpretation?
This line of reasoning falsely separates the Bible, which is an
archaeological artifact in its own right, from other legitimate archaeological
artifacts. It also ignores the fact that
archaeological artifacts that contain writing are many times more significant
and valuable than archaeological artifacts that do not contain writing. Above all, it is writing that defines the artifacts,
and not the other way around.
By twisting these facts inside out The Bible’s Buried
Secrets seeks to justify the reconstruction of the Bible into a new and
foreign document. This is bad scientific
practice: in the examination of evidence, to separate the evidence, then piece
it back together in a different pattern.
This is not a permissible scientific technique. Yet, that is exactly the process that will be
followed. By cleverly employing
genuinely pivotal historic events, what actually happened in these events will
be distorted to rewrite history and create a new and false reality.
[8]
The “objective … beyond”, was to disclose that fact that over, above, and in
parallel with history, a whole invisible spiritual world exists, with which the
historical world is in unbroken tangency: so that they, the Israelites were
picked by Yahweh to continue the dispersion of that message to the world. The biblical narratives contrast with
Egyptian and other narratives in their modesty and the absence of hyperbole.
We might more accurately, but conversely say that the Egyptian
writers were telling stories. They were
good historians. And they could, tell it
the way it was, when they wanted to. But
their objective was always something far beyond that. One need only consider the complexities,
exaggerations, and variations of the Osiris, Isis Horus mythology to realize
that the Egyptians were fond of whoppers.
Merneptah was willing to deface the history of his predecessor, Amenhotep III in order to blow his
own horn. The artifact should properly
be called the Amenhotep III Stele or
at least the Amenhotep III-Merneptah Stele.
The objective beyond, found in Egyptian monuments was political
glorification and promotion: things which are conspicuously absent in the
biblical narrative. Moses, Joshua, and
later David are ever representing themselves as the servants of Yahweh. The victories are exclusively His.
[10]
The credibility of artifacts is developed from their provenance. Provenance does not develop from mere
artifacts. The Jews maintained their
provenance in the temple, because the artifacts themselves were not that
important to them. What was important to
the Jews, at least to some of them, was what Yahweh thought of them. So they kept their records of provenance on
file in the most holy place, in a manner similar to our use of county
courthouses. The Egyptians, on the other
hand, were totally consumed with the flesh, hence the propensity to record most
provenance directly on the monuments themselves. The Jews considered great events to be the
work of Yahweh, worthy of thanksgiving to Him.
The Egyptians considered great events to be due to their own prowess, worthy
of bragging rights.
[11] Documents
must be interpreted from the argument and intent of the original author. To claim that a book like Exodus has no
single author defies the facts as presented.
To perform dissections based on invented themes is not profitable.
[12] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment