From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Genesis 9:6 and Capital Punishment
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:47:57 GMT

Hi, Darren,

I suspect we are close to the gulf that separates the 'liberal' and
'conservative' world views and understanding of scripture here. You
snipped most of the material in my post which I regard as essential
for understanding this topic, and left in the bits that I put there to
try and build a bridge between us. 

The basic difference between us here is the way we read scripture. You
read Genesis 9:6 as a verbatim account (written by Moses at God's
dictation) of a conversation between Noah and God after the flood. Now
if that is the case, then of course there is no question that the
injunction against shedding blood and the mandate to prosecute capital
punishment against murderers is binding on all humanity.

But I do not believe that Genesis 9:6 is a verbatim account of a
conversation between Noah and God after the flood. I believe that
those words were written by the Priests who reconstructed the Jewish
nation and religion after the Babylonian capitivity. They were
establishing the divine warrant for what was _then_ commonplace in
every nation.

Can you see that the assumptions we bring to the Bible, based on our
faith, experience and study, greatly affect our conclusions in this
matter. I concede, as I did at the beginning of my previous post, that
from the starting point of your basic assumptions, your view is quite
correct. What I tried to do in the remainder of my post was show that
from the starting point of my basic assumptions, my view (that Capital
Punishment is abhorrent to Christian faith and practise) is also
internally consistent. For me, it is true.

>From here we can agree to disagree, or we can fight out the issues of
how, when, and by whom the Bible was written, and for what purpose. I
am not sure there is much to be gained from criticising each other's
conclusions when we start from such difference basic assumptions.


I have responded to a couple of points below.

In <35d7ed64.0>, "Darren R Middleton"
<> wrote:

>Are you aware of the term creational ordinance?

No

>>Having said that, for what it is worth, Genesis 9:1-17 is generally
>>considered to come from the Priestly writers, the source of the
>>Pentateuch which is latest in date, and most preoccupied with
>>legalities and the social order.

>By who?

By scholars who accept the documentary hypothesis.

> I reject the documentary hypothesis because it lacks any *real*
>evidence.

I reject the notion of 'divine plenary inspiration', for the same
reason.

I accept the documentary hypothesis because it provides an explanation
for the things I can observe in the Bible, and it also provides me
with the basis for a workable method of using the Bible to preach,
teach and practise Christian faith and life.

>>2. Context
>>The whole of Genesis chapters 1-11 is the creation story of the Hebrew
>>scriptures. It echoes the creation stories of other cultures who lived
>>around the ancient Hebrews, and according to the documentary
>>hypothesis it is mostly made up of the work of the Jahwist
>>storytellers who preserved the ancient stories of the Jewish people
>>and may have begn to write them down in the courts of David and
>>Solomon some 1000 - 950 years before the time of Jesus, and the
>>Priestly writers who finally edited the pentateuch. Genesis 1-11
>>contains stories illustrating the power of God over creation, stories
>>illustrating the sinfulness of humanity and God's response in
>>discipline and blessing, and stories underpinning and explaining many
>>of the laws and customs of the Jews.

>Context: After the judgement of the flood, we see God re-affirm the
>creational ordinances of Gen 2; be fruitful and increase in number & fill
>the earth (9:1,7), mans dominion over creation (9:3).
>Therefore we may note, the passage in question falls contextually in the
>midst of the re-affirmation of the _creational ordinances_.

See above. 
Your context and mine are both internally consistent. If your context
is correct, then DP is mandated. If my context is correct, then the DP
is debatable.

>>Sunday school plays about Noah seldom include the events of Genesis
>>9:18-29.

>Is that your black humour?

Somewhat.

One day I will do some research on why it is that God goes to a great
deal of trouble to save 'righteous' Noah and Lot, and the first thing
both of them do afterwards is get drunk and sexually involved with
their children. This is one of the great mysteries of scripture - and
neither of our schools of understanding scripture adequately explain
it.

>>3. Related texts
>>Note the prohibition on flesh with its blood, a requirement
>>specifically repeated for Christians at the council of Jerusalem (Acts
>>15:20,29). It is worth noting that most Christians do not consider
>>themselves to be bound by this law today.

>Come on Nigel, you are not serious, are you? Is this really your exegesis of
>this passage?
>Acts 15:20,29 was not a universal prohibition on meat with blood in it, but
>rather a call to the gentiles not to be a stumbling block to the Jews.

That is a very convenient exegesis. Genesis 9:6 is binding on all
humanity. Acts 15:20,29 applies only to a particular group of Gentiles
to whom they were addressed.

Let me guess. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 applies to all churches
everywhere and for all time, but 1 Timothy 2:9 applied only to a
particular group of women at a particular time. Or does you church ban
braided hair and pearls?

Sorry, but this use of the Bible is mystifying to me. I don't find it
hard to do it - but it is beyond me how anyone could believe it.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell