The Ancient Near East and Genesis 2: Seven Minute Seminary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2014
- seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com
How should we be understand Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1? What are the issues involved? Is Genesis 1 and Genesis portraying the same event? Dr. Sandy Richter leads us in the discussion.
// Study the Epic of Eden: Jonah with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/the-ep...
// Study the Epic of Eden: Ruth with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/the-ep...
//Study the Epic of Eden: Isaiah with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/the-ep...
// Study the Epic of Eden: Understanding the Old Testament with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/epic-o...
I love this Seven Minutes Seminary. She explains so well. Blessed her!!
Another excellent video on understanding the beginning of Genesis in the context of Ancient Near Eastern culture. Seems like we often miss the point because we try to understand the creation accounts with 21st Century, Western preconceptions.
I’ve always known intuitively that the Genesis writers just HAD to rebuke the “memes” of their day… makes no sense otherwise. So glad to hear about this academic perspective ♥️
Brilliant thanks.
that's beautiful!
Awesome!
I've heard about the Framework View prior to watching your Genesis 1 videos. But this is new to me. When I read Genesis 2, I always thought it was strange how God formed man somewhere outside the Garden, and then later "took him and placed him IN the Garden". Why not make him in the Garden, in the first place? It's also a strange thing to picture God picking up a person and placing him in the Garden.... I think this helps to make sense of that.
She puts a lot in those 7 minutes. I'd love to hear the expanded version for an hour or 2 with this as the prologue.
Bravo...
I've often thought that the Genesis creation account was essentially a repudiation of the Bronze Age pagan creation accounts (one God creates all, instead of many), that it's telling the truth of who God is, while condemning Israel's pagan neighbors. I just couldn't ever say it well. But boy can she! This was fascinating.
Wow!!!
I suggest the Mesopotamian story is a corrupted version of the accurate, biblical account, just as the Babylonian story of Noah's Flood is a corruption of the biblical original. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic has a silly, cube-shaped ark - I think it was 120 x 120 x 120 cubits, which is easy to remember, but a vessel that shape would have capsized with the first small wave, and just rolled over and over! I also seem to recall it was said to have rained for only six days, with nothing about the fountains of the great deep breaking up.
As people were scattered from Babel, they took with them knowledge of the events from creation up to that time. Passed down through the generations by word of mouth, these stories became corrupted. The Bible gives us the original, fully trust-worthy account.
But of which part does it say that it's a retelling of genesis one? If the text doesn't say it is, why read into the text that it is? Assumption is the mother of all mistakes and there are also lots of parts in Genesis two that just don't work if it was a retelling of genesis one?
There is no need to tell the reader the obvious. It is a common literary and rhetorical device to begin a narrative with a "high level" opening, then select a portion of the overview on which to expand. It has never occurred to me that these are two separate accounts of the same events written by different authors from different ages. That reading is not logical to me.
The term Middle East was originally used by the British to refer to India, and India is in the Middle East in relation to the Near East and the Far East, but the subject of geography is somewhat lacking in the American education system.
This is good but I think Dr. Michael Heiser goes into these issues in a more complete way.
That is very interesting story you explain my now your address where you lived
The view that she advocates for is known as the framework hypothesis or the literary framework view, which was formulated in the 1920s and then came to prominence a few decades later through the scholarly work of Dr. Herman Ridderbos. This means that the framework view has been around only since the 20th Century. It is true that the newness of the view shouldn't detract from examining its claims.
There are some modern day, theological, heavy-hitters who embrace the framework view. For example, Dr. Bruce Waltke and Dr. Timothy Keller advocate this particular interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. Personally, I can't help but wonder about the exegetical merits of the framework view given the fact that it seems to have gone unnoticed for nearly 2000 years of church history. If it really is the best way to read and interpret the Genesis creation account, then how did other theological heavyweights overlook it?
I read the framework theory originated with Augustine.
I don't know about the earliest Church fathers, but by the time you get to the medieval period there was a strong anti-Jewish cultural bias in Europe in general, as well as in the Church. This is one of many reasons that the traditional Jewish interpretations were lost to the Church until fairly recently. Add to that the fact that Genesis was written something like 3400 years ago. With all the upheavals, rise and fall of empires, multiple conquests and reconquests, it is very easy to see how even the Jewish tradition could easily lose track of this type of historical context. Just preserving the original texts themselves was a major undertaking.
I think it is most likely that Adam and his descendants passed their experiences and conversations with God down via oral tradition. These stories took on a new life in ancient Mesopotamia and were adapted to the religions and writings of the ancient near east centuries later. Hence, the historical information she presented in this video and writings such as the Epic of Gilgamesh were birthed. My seminary professors taught me that the first 11 chapters of Genesis was a retelling of ancient near eastern writings. If that is true, the account of Adam and Eve was a myth and the global flood in Genesis 6 is but a whimsical tale. If those views are true, there was no original sin, and if there is no original sin we humans were born good, and if we are by nature good we don't need Jesus and his death was a tragic injustice and he didn't die for me. Then I could take walks in the park on Sunday mornings and forget this ridiculous church going thing. By the grace of God, however, that is not where I am and my professors only succeeded in inspiring me to research and to think more deeply. And for that, I am exceedingly grateful.
I don't think the retelling of ancient Near Eastern writings is mutually exclusive with your faith. Genesis was birthed in opposition to Near Eastern viewpoints (with deities demonstrating much sexual violence and vice). Much like modern Christians maintaining aloofness from modern secular culture, the voices that birthed Genesis did much the same thing.
@@squil35 A lot of it depends on the sequence of events one holds. My OT professor, Oxford Ph.D., taught the documentary hypothesis but told me privately that today's Oxford professors would laugh at that. Another scholar I know told me that theory was debunked in the 70's. Neither side can site empirical evidence.
so is she saying it was literal?
Days of the week in the framework theory can be viewed as literal days.
No I don’t think she’s saying it’s literal at all. If I understand correctly, the Genesis account is a Jewish rebuttal of the pagan misconceptions common in their day. It’s a story of WHO not HOW.
@@Actuary1776 What do you mean by who? I.e. Who (or what) is who?
"Devil women" are increasing daily in the fallen churches of today.
For as St. Paul has stated, forbidding faithful women of God to teach, preach, and must NOT usurp the God given authority of men......
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".
1 Timothy 2:10-14 (KJV)
AMEN!
1 Timothy is a forgery written long after Paul's death but that doesn't stop you people from using it to justify your ignorance and misogyny.