@fredsbend You explained my position very competently :)

@fredsbend No, minimalism/maximalism are the two extremes of the positions people take after doing their exegesis (or cynically, before) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

@BruceAlderman History as a genre and a discipline is more recent definitely. The ancient writers had a different purpose and frame of mind than we do. One of the purposes was definitely polemical. But even though it may not be history, I think there's a strong case that it's authors and early readers thought it was historical. Adam and Noah are referred back to in ways quite unlike Job, for example.

A question for those who think there is little if any historical truth in Genesis 1-11: In what way would it serve as a polemic if it doesn't have a basis in reality? If it is meant to teach us that God created orderly rather than chaotically from the body of a dead god, can it in fact teach us that if we knew that God did not create in such an order?

If we are meant to see that the sun and moon are our servants, being created after the world and merely two days before humanity, that they are not the source of our life, how can it teach that if we knew that it was actually created countless ages before and is the material cause of our existence?

I know that Genesis 1 has many similarities to the Enuma Elish. I don't think that's accidental, and I think that it was formed to be reminiscent of it in order to be a polemic, but I think it can only work as a polemic if what it says is actually based in reality more than the EE is. If it's equally mythological then how can it serve as a polemic?

If it's inspired (and if it isn't then there's no point having this conversation) then why would God replace one set of ANE myths with another?

This is not an argument for 24-hour 6-day-ism. I would never argue that the sun was created exactly 48 hours before the first humans. But the reality must match in a way quite unlike the other origin myths it is being a polemic against.

@fredsbend The historical-grammatical method is not at all similar to literalism. It's just generic good exegesis, using our knowledge of non-Biblical texts to help us understand how the Biblical languages work. As a hermeneutical method it would be opposed to very allegorical approaches, which for example, would take every single noun as symbolic for some deeper theological truth

@LeeWoofenden I didn't know that CARM claim to be literalists. I don't know anyone in real life who is associated with them however. They have a nice website but I think it's probably produced by a small group.

@fredsbend They really can't be equated, or else Bruce and Lee, who are using that method to say that Genesis 1-11 is a-historical would be called literalists!

@LeeWoofenden What is the point of using the word literal if they are going to interpret things like the "firmament" figuratively? If they're paying attention to genre and figurative language then why call their interpretation on the whole literal?

@fredsbend Exactly. If you can have the debate over whether something is figurative or not then you're not a literalist. Literalism says there can be no debate.

@curiousdannii I actually agree with this entire statement. But rather than "equally mythological" I'd say that Genesis is a truer mythology. Genesis reveals the universe to be the creation of one transcendent God who has everything under his control, and not the byproduct of a host of gods in conflict. That is how Genesis is more based in reality than Enuma Elish: Genesis is based in spiritual reality.

@BruceAlderman I'd agree with that too. (And I was using myth in the layman not-history sense rather than the more academic cosmic origin sense.)

@curiousdannii I don't think the purpose of Genesis 1-11 is primarily meant to serve as a polemic. Rather, it is meant to convey spiritual truths about the nature of humanity, especially regarding our early beginnings. A agree with @BruceAlderman that there is specific belief content in the particular form that this particular mythical material takes, and that is important, but is not, in my view, the most important meaning conveyed by those stories.

@curiousdannii CARM seems to be produced almost entirely by Matt Slick himself. However, it does represent a specific, defined viewpoint which could presumably be tied to a particular wing of a particular Christian denomination.

Similarly, my own website, Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life is produced almost entirely by yours truly, assisted by my wife, who edits most pieces that get posted, provides story topics and research, and contributes occasional snippets of writing. And yet, the website does represent a specific theological viewpoint: Swedenborgian. And within the range of Swedenborgian thought, it is toward the liberal end and generally opposes the more conservative end of the spectrum.

IOW, the fact that CARM is produced largely by a single individual doesn't invalidate it as a mouthpiece and representative of a larger, denominationally-linked theological perspective. Like me, Matt Slick is, after all, an ordained minister, presumably in some specific denomination that he seems to prefer not to name or emphasize.

As for his doctrinal position, here is how he defines it in his piece on "What I Believe":

> Finally, in short, I am a five point calvinist, amillennial, post-trib rapture, pseudo-baptistic (not for salvation), non-cessationist, and covenantal.

That looks pretty doctrinally specific to me.

@curiousdannii Your assault on the word "literal" seems to me to be akin to arguing that there's no such thing as a tree because there are so many varieties of trees, and trees are, after all, just big plants, and besides, some trees are more like bushes, and some bushes are more like trees, so how can we really say there's any such thing as a tree???

At which point the average person rolls his (or her) eyes and points to a tree.