Re: The Flood Hoax

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 12:13:12 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "RE: Noahic Covenant"

    George Murphy wrote:

    > Myths about gods & goddesses having affairs with humans & negetting or
    >giving birth to "hybrid" divine-humans abound in many cultures - think of all
    >the stories about Zeus & Leda, Europa &c & offspring like Hercules. Gen.6:1-4
    >makes use of such a myth but not in undigested form. As we have it
    >in Scripture
    >it is "broken myth," a pagan myth modified to make a theological point in the
    >service of the God of Israel. As used here it denies the popular notion found
    >in those pagan myths that divinity is something that can be transmitted by
    >biological means. & placed where it is in Genesis it represents the ultimate
    >transgression of boundaries & breakdown in the ordering of creation that will
    >bring on the flood.
    > Later ideas about angels in the NT - e.g., that they "neither
    >marry nor are
    >given in marriage" - cannot be read back into the OT. They
    >represent a further
    > There are other examples of "broken myth" in the OT. (The term
    >comes from
    >Brevard Childs who discusses the idea & examples in _Myth and Reality
    >in the Old
    >Testament_.) E.g., Is.14:12-15 is based on a Canaanite myth about the revolt
    >of the younger against the elder gods (cf. the Greek war of gods vs. titans),
    >but is used here to speak of the doom of historical Babylon. It is most
    >unfortunate that this & Gen.6:1-4 have been _re_mythologized by Christians and
    >made into an elaborate Christian myth about the fall of Satan &c. But in fact
    >the Bible contains at most little hints about any such prehistoric fall of
    >angels. What most people think of as the biblical version of this story is in
    >fact Milton's account in _Paradise Lost_.
    > & any attempt to find some historical niche for Gen.6:1-4 & perhaps some
    >historical evidence for the _nephilim_, the descendants of the "sons of the
    >gods" and "the daughters on men," seems to me to be a _reductio ad
    >absurdum_ of

    Always nice to get a liberal perspective. I find it curious, though,
    that a Lutheran theologian has so many views that are not generally
    attributed to Martin Luther's own theology. Did I miss something in

    Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution -
    ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 13:43:45 EDT