N
nordskoven
Guest
Form Criticism has relied on eisegisis, pouring meaning into–or sucking it out of–literary styles to attenuate the import of Biblical truths. Genesis as mere ancient mythos paralleled in other creation and Deluge accounts is meant to be dismissive. The intent is to wrest control away from divine intent and content, and to recast man’s will as God’s. One doesn’t need to continue male-female marriage as biblically mandated, for example, as this was just a black box place-keeper for what really happened.
Form Criticism continually dashes its own brains against the rock. Good science is good religion. Y chromosome studies point to a single progenitor in Adam. Mitochondrial DNA permutation studies point to a single progenetrix, the Woman. Fundamental broad genetic groupings nicely parallel the four couples on Noah’s Ark.
Form Criticism writhes at the very antiquity of texts. Suzerainty Treaties, with the vital link to semitic King Sargon the Great, are in the same parallel form as the Genesis creation account. This dual form is so utilitarian it is still used in technical papers on law and medicine with synopsis and exposition.
Trivializing ancient documents as mythos was a scathing tactic of Form Critics. It is to ignore Schliemann’s discovery of Troy based on his reading of Homer. Schliemann’s find should have served as a warning reminder of Euhemerus’ assertion that the gods and goddesses of olden times were actually based on historical figures. Zeus is Zeusudra, the Flood King, the tenth in the line of the king lists of Genesis and other middle eastern lands, Noah.
Archaeology has retrieved the Bible from the perjorative of “myth.” The discovery of the Aramaic reference to King David, or the more current discovery of High Priest Caiphas’ tomb, silenced the growls but not the demonic intent.
The assault isn’t on the Bible, but on God and His revelation through His servants, Moses, and ultimately Peter. Lawyer Lyell and Divinity School refugee Darwin wrote to each other of their aim to eradicate Moses’ Genesis account. Elitism, spawning modern genocidal slaughter, rankles at the notion of God and His elect. The people of the Book are their enemies.
Agendized New Age pseudo-science has given us Neandertal Man, who actually ritually buried his dead in red ochre, fraudulently displayed with jaw displaced to the rear too look more devolved. Evidence has been discarded or falsified when not fitting the theory of man’s aloneness in the world and having to cobble up some comforting Creator.
Sir Julian Huxley said the scientists of his day adopted evolution as erasing a God Whose morals would hamper their sexual escapades. Form Criticism followed handily on the heels of the nineteenth century Free Love movement that ultimately spawned genetic elites like Margaret Sanger, who wanted to eradicate all brown-eyed people via Planned Parenthood.
Who today knows that ancient Egypt and ancient China were monotheistic? How can Form Criticism stand in the face of cultural praxis extant today, like the universality of marriage and modesty standards? Kenneth Kitchen, Christian Egyptologist, commenting on universality extant not only in written texts and oral legends but in practice, says it is as if all people were reading right out of Genesis with their remarkable consonance of shared mores and laws.
Form Criticism has ignored data. One miner of such overlooked gold has been D. James Kennedy, with his “Gospel in the Stars”, an exposition of prophetic theology in the very names of stars and consetellations, the Leo of the Tribe of Judah, the Virgo Mary.
Form Criticism has attempted to spread confusion and doubt where certainty and unanimity exists in a divine holographic harmony. Form Criticism’s sniping has melted down in the beam of the laser-like unity from Adam onward that is still flowering under the scrutiny of hard science, whether genetics, archaeology, sociology, astronomy… Form Criticism self-deconstructed when one proponent had his own text analyzed by his students using his methods, only to discover his monograph was actually by multiple authors.
Content and intent, not form, is what counts; and no matter how many messengers you martyr, the Truth remains. PAX CHRISTI +
Form Criticism continually dashes its own brains against the rock. Good science is good religion. Y chromosome studies point to a single progenitor in Adam. Mitochondrial DNA permutation studies point to a single progenetrix, the Woman. Fundamental broad genetic groupings nicely parallel the four couples on Noah’s Ark.
Form Criticism writhes at the very antiquity of texts. Suzerainty Treaties, with the vital link to semitic King Sargon the Great, are in the same parallel form as the Genesis creation account. This dual form is so utilitarian it is still used in technical papers on law and medicine with synopsis and exposition.
Trivializing ancient documents as mythos was a scathing tactic of Form Critics. It is to ignore Schliemann’s discovery of Troy based on his reading of Homer. Schliemann’s find should have served as a warning reminder of Euhemerus’ assertion that the gods and goddesses of olden times were actually based on historical figures. Zeus is Zeusudra, the Flood King, the tenth in the line of the king lists of Genesis and other middle eastern lands, Noah.
Archaeology has retrieved the Bible from the perjorative of “myth.” The discovery of the Aramaic reference to King David, or the more current discovery of High Priest Caiphas’ tomb, silenced the growls but not the demonic intent.
The assault isn’t on the Bible, but on God and His revelation through His servants, Moses, and ultimately Peter. Lawyer Lyell and Divinity School refugee Darwin wrote to each other of their aim to eradicate Moses’ Genesis account. Elitism, spawning modern genocidal slaughter, rankles at the notion of God and His elect. The people of the Book are their enemies.
Agendized New Age pseudo-science has given us Neandertal Man, who actually ritually buried his dead in red ochre, fraudulently displayed with jaw displaced to the rear too look more devolved. Evidence has been discarded or falsified when not fitting the theory of man’s aloneness in the world and having to cobble up some comforting Creator.
Sir Julian Huxley said the scientists of his day adopted evolution as erasing a God Whose morals would hamper their sexual escapades. Form Criticism followed handily on the heels of the nineteenth century Free Love movement that ultimately spawned genetic elites like Margaret Sanger, who wanted to eradicate all brown-eyed people via Planned Parenthood.
Who today knows that ancient Egypt and ancient China were monotheistic? How can Form Criticism stand in the face of cultural praxis extant today, like the universality of marriage and modesty standards? Kenneth Kitchen, Christian Egyptologist, commenting on universality extant not only in written texts and oral legends but in practice, says it is as if all people were reading right out of Genesis with their remarkable consonance of shared mores and laws.
Form Criticism has ignored data. One miner of such overlooked gold has been D. James Kennedy, with his “Gospel in the Stars”, an exposition of prophetic theology in the very names of stars and consetellations, the Leo of the Tribe of Judah, the Virgo Mary.
Form Criticism has attempted to spread confusion and doubt where certainty and unanimity exists in a divine holographic harmony. Form Criticism’s sniping has melted down in the beam of the laser-like unity from Adam onward that is still flowering under the scrutiny of hard science, whether genetics, archaeology, sociology, astronomy… Form Criticism self-deconstructed when one proponent had his own text analyzed by his students using his methods, only to discover his monograph was actually by multiple authors.
Content and intent, not form, is what counts; and no matter how many messengers you martyr, the Truth remains. PAX CHRISTI +