Comments on: Genesis: A Source vs. a Borrower http://benjaminvineyard.com/2008/09/25/genesis-a-source-vs-a-borrower/ Seeking Spiritual Renovation in Christ Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:07:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Pete http://benjaminvineyard.com/2008/09/25/genesis-a-source-vs-a-borrower/#comment-10 Pete Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:43:19 +0000 http://benjaminvineyard.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-10 My thoughts go this way: it's all fine and dandy in modern historical-critical thought to simply assume that our Scripture should be read like any other book. Namely that we post-moderns are given the task to find the true meaning behind the tradition. But what if what we have isn't to be treated like any other book? What if what we have is in its own way a revelation from God? What if we take it as it is? If our eternity hinges on the fact that God has revealed Himself to us in Christ and has slain the power of death through the cross, why do we have such a hard time imagining that what we have has been given to us by God in some way? Also, it's easy to spend a lot of time questioning the intent of Gen. 1-11, and many have done so. I'm no expert on the matter, but I do know one thing. Again, if our eternity hinges on the story of the Gospel, once we start picking apart crucial elements of that Story, then everything about Christ's work begins to unravel. For example, if we are a product of evolution, and evolution is entirely dependent on death to progress the human race, then why is death shown as a problem in Gen. 1-11? Why do we need a savior from death if death is necessary to advance humanity? Also, if the serpent in the garden wasn't a serpent, then what was it? Is there even a devil then, or just a product of tradition? Who gets to decide this? What is sin, then? Why did Jesus actually need to come for us? You see, being historical-critical about these things really picks away from why we need Jesus. And if Jesus didn't come to fulfill what he said he would, then all Christians are just a pitiful bunch of ignorant saps. My thoughts go this way: it’s all fine and dandy in modern historical-critical thought to simply assume that our Scripture should be read like any other book. Namely that we post-moderns are given the task to find the true meaning behind the tradition. But what if what we have isn’t to be treated like any other book? What if what we have is in its own way a revelation from God? What if we take it as it is? If our eternity hinges on the fact that God has revealed Himself to us in Christ and has slain the power of death through the cross, why do we have such a hard time imagining that what we have has been given to us by God in some way?

Also, it’s easy to spend a lot of time questioning the intent of Gen. 1-11, and many have done so. I’m no expert on the matter, but I do know one thing. Again, if our eternity hinges on the story of the Gospel, once we start picking apart crucial elements of that Story, then everything about Christ’s work begins to unravel. For example, if we are a product of evolution, and evolution is entirely dependent on death to progress the human race, then why is death shown as a problem in Gen. 1-11? Why do we need a savior from death if death is necessary to advance humanity? Also, if the serpent in the garden wasn’t a serpent, then what was it? Is there even a devil then, or just a product of tradition? Who gets to decide this? What is sin, then? Why did Jesus actually need to come for us? You see, being historical-critical about these things really picks away from why we need Jesus. And if Jesus didn’t come to fulfill what he said he would, then all Christians are just a pitiful bunch of ignorant saps.

]]> By: thefuerstshallbelast http://benjaminvineyard.com/2008/09/25/genesis-a-source-vs-a-borrower/#comment-4 thefuerstshallbelast Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:40:45 +0000 http://benjaminvineyard.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-4 I think it really depends on what you think the function of Genesis 1-11 is. Is it purely history? Is it historical myth? Is it designed to teach polemical theology? Where you land on these questions determines how you will approach the relationship of Genesis with other creation stories. Personally, I think there is both a give and a take. Israel was the source for much of these story's, but she also borrowed from other ANE cultures....hence the tempting serpent, which was probably a Canaanite manifestation of Baal. This makes Genesis 3 serve as a constant reminder to steer clear of Canaanite religion. anyway, just some thoughts. I think it really depends on what you think the function of Genesis 1-11 is. Is it purely history? Is it historical myth? Is it designed to teach polemical theology? Where you land on these questions determines how you will approach the relationship of Genesis with other creation stories.

Personally, I think there is both a give and a take. Israel was the source for much of these story’s, but she also borrowed from other ANE cultures….hence the tempting serpent, which was probably a Canaanite manifestation of Baal. This makes Genesis 3 serve as a constant reminder to steer clear of Canaanite religion.

anyway, just some thoughts.

]]>