Re: The Flood Hoax

From: george murphy (
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 17:32:50 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)"

    Jay Willingham wrote:

    > .....................................................
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "John Burgeson"Subject: Re: The Flood Hoax
    > >
    > >
    > > But both Jonah and Job read like literature -- not as history. To hold
    > that
    > > they are
    > > > -- either of them -- actual literal history seems no more likely than if
    > > > someone were to tell me to take CINDERELLA as literal history.
    > >
    > > Burgy, I heartily disagree that the portions of the Bible that read like
    > > excellent literature cannot be taken literally. I find far more credence
    > > in Job and Jonah's stories than in Cinderella or any of the other
    > simplistic
    > > fairy tales. Jay

             Comparison with Cinderella suggests a serious missing of the
    point. Try,
    e.g., King Lear instead.
             But of course nobody says that Jonah can't be accurate
    history _because_
    it's great literature. The reason for such assessment is that there
    are features
    of the story that indicate in various ways that it is fiction. I take the
    liberty to repeat this list from an earlier post of mine.

          The well-known site of the city of Nineveh was not "three days
    journey in breadth" (3:3).
             "The king of Nineveh" is a title equivalent to "The president of
    Washington." The king who might have been resident in Nineveh would have
    been "the king of Assyria."
             There is no historical evidence for a mass conversion of the whole
    city of Nineveh in the time of historical prophet Jonah (II Kg.14:25), some
    time around 765 B.C.
             The prayer of Jonah in Chapter 2 makes no reference to his being "in
    the belly of the fish" but seems to be that of a man threatened with drowning
             There are obvious exaggerations. I already mentioned the size of
    Nineveh. Jonah's "sermon" in 3:4 is 5 words in Hebrew - enough to satisfy
    the minimum conditions of his commission but hardly enough to convert the
    whole city. (& there's no reason to think he said anything more. Since - as
    we finally see at the end - Jonah doesn't _want_ the Ninevites to be
    converted, it makes sense that he didn't.)

    > > I see no theological message in either book that is dependent upon either
    > > being literal history.
    > >
    > > Burgy, without a literal source, the God of both stories is as
    > meaningless
    > > as a fairy godmother. Jay

             I don't know what's meant by "a literal source" but assume
    you mean that
    the events of the story
    must have actually happened in order for what they say about God to be
    meaningful. This is manifestly false. The point of Lk.12:16-21 is not lost if
    the events in it didn't actually take place.
    (& of course many other parables of Jesus could be mentioned. I note this one
    because God appears in it directly rather than via some representation like the
    father in the story of the prodigal son.)

    > > > The basic theological message of Jonah is that God reaches out to those
    > > who are "not us."
    > >
    > > Burgy, that is part of the message. Also key in Jonah is God's
    > > sovereignty, the result of ignoring God's directives and God's quickness
    > to
    > > forgive and restore the repenatent heart.

             Of course there are a number of ideas expressed in any
    biblical text but
    they are not necessarily "the message" of that text. The point of Jonah is
    indeed that God cares for, pities, and desires life rather than death for those
    who are not of Israel - even the hated enemies of Israel. The whole story has
    been constructed to get to the question of the last verse: "And should I not
    pity Nineveh?" God grabs hold of your collar and forces you - the
    Israelite who
    thinks he knows better than God who deserves mercy and who doesn't -
    and demands
    an answer. "Should I not pity Nineveh? Shouldn't I?" The force of this
    question ought not be blunted by trying to find other messages in the story.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 21:08:44 EDT