Re: [TruthTalk] Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

[ttxpress]

e.g., even God (himself) won't attempt waxing eloquent (incorporating Godly rationale) on 'good and evil' without a human context or sitz em leiben, as some ppl call it--the difficulty of the subject matter is bound up, intricately, in (his) Incarnation; w/o (his) Incarnation there's probably unknowable eloquence on 'good and evil'; but, to me, (the idea of) it ain't that pretty at all         g :: tt moderator    On Thu, 5 May 2005 20:36:53 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: this rebuttal ain't human--what ain't human ain't rational, inc God   On Thu, 5 May 2005 09:32:47 -0400 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Debbie writes:  will answer your other post here too: Yes, I have looked up all the Scriptures you cited, but I see nothing at all there that supports your conclusions. They were: 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Cor. 5:17; Acts 2; Deut. 17:14-20. (There were some allusions to, e.g. to Isaiah.)   Debbie Ok, then I'll go over them again.  The above were only a few of them and remember I am addressing Rikk Watts' thesis on Genesis 1. He begins by claiming that Genesis the story of origins has to do with what it means to be human. Question: Debbie Is your idea of "being human" the same as his? Watts then goes off into what he calls Australianese and alludes to Canadianese. And BTW his story about the "lovely Asian students" took place in Victoria Australia at the College where he worked.  I don't wonder that these students were just horrified - Someone is wrong about this. He is!!  because Ephesians 5:4 tells us "There must be no indecency, silly talk or suggestive jesting, for they are unbecoming. There should be thanksgiving instead." (Montgomery) and this man is on faculty - an example - in leadership?  This is extremely inappropriate and the onus is on him. Because he has no understanding Watts goes on to claim that the book of Isaiah is quote "like a dogs breakfast" and one of his assumptions is that the reason for this is "forms of speech" as in his metaphor with the Asian students and Isaiah doesn't spell it out because he assumes his original audience is Hebrew. Right!  Like God is Hebrew or something... completely ignoring what is written in 1 Peter 1:10 about the prophets inquiring and searching diligently to try and understand some of what they prophesied themselves.  Just because one goes to Cambridge does not given them "open Sesame" to the scriptures. I'll skip the "enlightenment, Mickey Mouse, Disney metaphors" along with "Tiger, tiger, burning bright" and the Computer DVE, CD, ROM and his story about the chubby guy doing his naked dance routine (more suggestive jesting). None of which has anything to do with Genesis or any other part of scripture for that matter. Is this guy interested in understanding what God says or in communicating his own mind? Then we go to from Hebrew poetry, literary structure, Churchill said x, to forms of literature, then back to Disney and talking ducks, Bultmann, Strauss, what they thought and finally to the conclusion that the genre or category is what saves his theory because it's not what we are used to as literal history and so in his opinion the evidence seems to point toward it not being a literal recounting of what happened at the beginning. The one true thing Watts says is that "he has all sorts of interesting ideas" and this about sums it up. I'll skip his recounting of the Babylonian creation myth, Marduk, Baal etc. What is disturbing to me is how he wrests the scripture to fit these "interesting ideas" Watts claims that all of these pagan gods win battles and after gaining dominion they construct a house or a temple because victorious gods build palaces and temples to establish their realm.  He then makes a gigantic leap and says quote: "We can see this with David. David was not allowed to build the temple to Yaweh. Why not? Because he hasn't finished the conquest yet" - the lie. Truth says: "And David assembled all the princes of Israel ... "Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, "hear me, my brethren and my people. As for me, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building; but God said unto me "Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood" (1 Chron 28:2,3) The above is just one example, there are more but I won't do your homework for you.  Do you care whether or not the speaker is deceived or are literary forms and genre your thing?